^ 


7*  if3i>v  '  ■ 


^m 


^ 


5^ 


1%        /■     ! 


-_-_.   -v-.-^V, 


^ 


f*<,.^,. 


1                        Tlie 

rropertry                       1 

IlEfflDiT 

MBBEITIBIIIIST 

o 

^ilTilV'T. 

BARTON 

SQUARE,    SALEM. 

DEPOSITED                    ' 

1 

LIBRARY-" 

—  OF    THi:—                                  _'    - 

ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 

■'    1 

* 


A    CAKDID    AND    CONCILIATORY 

REVIEW 


OP    THE    LATE 


CORRESPONDENCE 


or  tmj: 


Reverend  Dr.WorcestT  with  the  Reverend  \\'illiani  E.  Channing, 


ON    THE 


t)u6iert  of  ©nitattanism* 


BY  A  SERIOUS  JXQUIRER. 


«'  And  not  a  little  influence  is  exerted  to  prevent  people  from  read- 

Jne_more  than  one  side.  Still,  liowever,  there  are  many  who  do  read 
and  will  read  both  sides.  The  points  in  discussion  are  among  the  most 
important  that  could  be  offered  to  the  attention  of  the  christian  communi- 
ty.  Though  some  ill  effects  may  ensue,  as,  in  a  world  like  this,  is  always 
to  be  expected,  when  any  thing'is  attempted  for  the  cause  of  truth  ;  yet 
the  persuasion,  I  believe,  is  continually  extending  and  gaining-  strength, 
that  the  good  effects  will  greatly  preponderate."    ....   Br.  Worcester. 


BOSTON  : 

PRINTED    BY    LINCOLN    &   EDMANDS,    FOR    THE    AUTHOR. 
1817. 


^f^t^l7[tH 


Dear   Sir, 

IN  compliance  with  j^oiir  urgent  and  repeated  request, 
I  take  my  pen,  after  much,  and  serious  deliberation,  to 
communicate  to  you  "  some  of  my  thoughts"  respecting 
the  late  correspondence  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester,  with 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Channing,  "  on  the  subject  of  Unitarianism.'* 

In  doing  this,  I  wish  to  appear  rather  as  an  inquirer  than 
a  judge. — My  inquiries,  if  not  exclusively,  will  principal- 
ly relate  to  Dr.  Worcester's  -views  and  arguments  in  re- 
lation to  the  "doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  and  the  "  persons" 
who  are  supposed  to  constitute  a  "  Triune  God." 

I  desire  to  come  to  these  subjects  of  inquiry  with  my 
mind  duly  impressed  with  their  magnitude  and  solemn 
importance,  and  with  a  strong  conviction  of  the  difficulties 
which  they  involve.  Fervently  praying  for  Divine  illumi- 
nation and  guidance,  I  shall  inquire,  in  tiie  first  place, 
whether  the  Doctor's  views  of 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY, 

are  to  be  admitted  as  correct  ?  This,  it  seems,  is,  "  upon 
the  whole,  your  belief." — A  belief,  which,  if  well  founded, 
1  most  sincerely  hope  will  be  strengthened  and  immovea- 
bly  established  in  your  own  mind,  and  become  universal. 
But  as  I  cannot  admit  the  Doctor's  views  of  this  subject 
as  "  unquestionahlif  correct,  I  must  be  permitted  to 
question,  before  I  can  undoubtingly  receive  them. 

In  his  Second  Letter  to  Mr.  Channing,  Dr.  Worcester 
observes,  p.  30,  "  On  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  or- 
thodox christians  believe  that  the  one  Jehovah  exists  in 
a  Trinity,  called  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
These  we  call  persons^  because  we  have  no  better  word  by 
which  to  denote  the  distinction,"  &c. 

In  his  Third  Letter,  p  p.  19,  20,  24,  31,  33,  69,  the 
Doctor  says,  "  The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  are 
either  three  Divine  Persons,  united  in  one  Godhead^  or  else 
three  separate  Divine  Beings.    The  former  is  the  ortho- 


dox  doctrine.'-  "  Ordiodox  christians  hold  that  the  three 
Divine  Persons  are  tmited  in  one  Godheads  "  They  ex- 
ist, and  act,  and  are  blessed  Ibrevermore,  as  one  God." 
"  That  three  Divine  Persons  are  one  God,  or  that  the  one 
God  exists  in  three  Divine  Persons,  is  revealed  with  suffi- 
cient clearness."  "  No  one  can  saj',  that  the  supposition 
of  three  Persons  in  one  God  is  contraiy  to  reason."  "  It 
is  a  well  attested  fact,  that,  by  the  great'  body  of  christians 
fron^  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  present,  thedeniers  of 
the  Trinity,  or  of  the  proper  Deity  and  atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ,  have  been  regarded  as  being  eminently  subverters 
of  the  Gospel." — Such  are  Dr.  Worcester's  statements  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  and  in  his  Second  Letter,  p. 
26,  he  says,  addressing  Mr.  Channing,  "We  worship.  Sir, 
THE  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Do  you  wor- 
ship this  same  God  '?" 

Before  I  consider  the  arguments  urged  in  support  of  this 
doctrine,  I  deem  it  necessary-,  to  asctirtain  w  hat  the  doc- 
trine z>,  or  what  is  to  be  understood  by  three  Divine  Per- 
sons united  in  one  Godhead^  or  God  ;  as  otheru  ise  words 
may  be  used  without  any  tiefinite  or  intelligible  ideas  ;  nor 
can  it  be  s^itisfactorily  determined  how  any  argument  ap- 
plies to  the  subject.  What  then  are  we  to  imdcrstand  by 
the  term  /J6>r^<9w,  as  used  by  Dr.  W.  ?  and  in  what  does 
their  union  consist,  by  which  they  are  constituted  0!ie 
God  ?  Does  he  mean  by  Persons,  modes  or  relations  of 
God,  such  as  Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier  ?  As 
some  things  occur  in  his  Letters  which  seem  to  favour  this 
supposition,  I  am  not  entirely  satisfied  that  this  is  not  his 
meaning.  Some  of  the  most  distinguished  Trinitarian 
w Titers  explicitly  say,  "  This  is  what  we  mean,  and  all  wc 
mean,  when  v;e  say  that  God  is  three  Persons."  And  this, 
I  am  persuaded,  is  all  that  incmy  reputed  Trinitarians  be- 
lieve in  relation  to  the  subject.  If  Dr.  W.  holds  this  doc- 
trine, you,  Sir,  probably  admit  it  as  correct.  But  you 
^yill  permit  me  to  ask,  Is  the  term  persons,  ever  used  in 
Scripture,  to  denote  the  three  relations  of  God — Creator^ 
Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier?  Did  these  relations  always 
exist  in  God,  even  before  any  created  being  existed  ?  Are 
these  relations  or  modes  to  be  considered  as  objects  of 
worship,  instead  of  God  himself,  in  w  horn  tliey  exist  ?  Tiie 
advocates  of  this  figurative,  or  metaphorical  Trinity,  ought 


ispicion 

of  holding  a  form  of  Trinitarian  words,  while  they  deny 
the  substance  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine. 

But  the  doctrine  r.s  above  stated,  would  not,  I  am  inclined 
to  believe,  be  admitted  by  Dr.  W.  as  conect.     His  defini- 


tion  of  persons  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  be  consistent 
with  it.  *'  They"  (the  three  Divine  Persons)  he  admits. 
Letter  3d,  p.  29,  *'  are  reallj'  and  truly  intelligent  agents, 
each  possessing  all  divine  attributes,  and  performing  in 
union  with  the  other  two,  all  divine  w orks."  In  his  t  iist 
Letter,  p.  27,  he  says,  "  Between  a  being  essentially  di- 
vir.e,  as  by  us  the  Saviour  (the  Son  of  God)  is  held  to  be, 
and  a  mere  creature,  however  '  exalted,'  there  is,  you  will 
readily  admit,  an  infinite  disparity."  In  Letter  3d,  p.  24, 
he  speaks  of  the  "  Son  as  essentially  equal,  and  one  with 
the  F ather."  Of  the  Holy  SjDirit,  he  observes.  Letter  2d, 
p.  36,  that  "  Orthodox  christians  believe  that  He,  like  the 
Father  and  Son,  is  tmly  and  essentially  divine."  And  in 
Letter  3d,  p.  30,  he  observes,  "  From  the  Scriptures  then, 
we  learn,  and  understand,  that  there  is  a  Father,  a  Son, 
and  a  Holy  Spirit :  that  the  Father  possesses  divine  attri- 
butes, and  is  therefore  God  ;  that  the  Son  ])ossesses  divine 
attributes,  and  is  therefore  God  ;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  also 
possesses  divine  attributes,  and  is  therefore  God  ;  and  that 
the  divine  Three  so  exist  together,  as  to  be  one  God." 

These  quotations  exhibit,  in  a  connected  view,  Dr, 
Worcester's  theory  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  I  know 
not  that  any  passage  in  his  Letters  has  been  omitted,  which 
would  assist  in  formmg  a  more  correct  and  clear  idea  of  it. 
The  import  of  the  quotations,  as  I  understand  them,  is, 
that  the  Father^  Son^  and  Holy  Spirit,  Q7  e  truly ^  essential- 
ly, equally  divine  persons,  but  so  united^  and  so  exists  as  to 
constitute  but  one  God, 

In  relation  to  this  doctrine,  I  shall  make  some  inquiries 
and  remarks.  But  before  I  do  this,  it  may  be  proper  to 
state  M'hat  the  Doctor  says  respecting  the  unioji  of  the  di- 
vine Three.  "  The  unity  of  the  three  divine  Persons  is 
the  highest  and  most  perfect  possible  :  not  merely  a  moral 
union,  such  as  exists  between  holy  men  and  angels,  but  an 
essential  oneness,  suph  as  constitutes  one  Godhead.  If  all  the 
knowledge,  and  A\isdom,  and  power,  and  goodness  of  the 
Father  are  also  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit ;  then  in 
their  nature,  in  their  attributes,  in  their  designs,  in  their 
works,  in  their  blessedness,  in  their  glory,  they  are  one.'* 

Is  this  view,  my  dear  Sir,  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  unquestionably  correct  ?  You  will  not  deem  it  as 
irreverent  and  presumptuous,  if  I  make  some  queries,  in 
reference  to  it,  and  suggest  some  diflicaities  existing  in  my 
own  mind  which  operate  as  a  hinderance  to  my  receiving 
it  as  an  unquestionable  veritj\ 

By  persons,  according  to  Dr-  W.  v/e  are  to  understand 
"really  and  truly  intelligent  agents,  each  possessing  all  di- 
vine attributes,  and  performing  in  union  with  the  other  two 
uU  divine  vvorks."    These  agents  are  tiirce  beings.    This 


it  is  presumed  the  Dr.  will  not  hesitate  to  admit,  as  he 
holds  that  the  Saviour,  (the  Son  of  Ood,)  is  "  a  beirig  es- 
sentially divine."  But  must  not  three  divine  hein'^s  be 
three  Gods  ?  Let  Dr.  W.  decide.  "  The  Father  pos- 
sesses divine  attributes,  and  is  therefore  God  ;  the  Son 
possesses  divine  attributes,  and  is  therefore  God  ;  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit  also  possesses  divip.e  attributes,  and  is  therefore 
God." — According  to  the  Dr.'s  theory  then,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  are  three  persons — these  persons  are 
three  agents — these  agents  are  three  be/?igs,  and  these 
beings  are  three  Gods.  And  yet  these  "  di\ine  Three  so 
exist  together  as  to  be  one  God."  But  "  what  is  there," 
asks  the  Dr.  "  in  all  this  which,  as  matter  of  fact,  we  do 
not  understand?" — W  hether  you,  my  dear  Sir,  understand 
a//  t/iis,  I  will  not  presume  to  say.  Bat  there  is  much  in 
it,  I  freely  confess,  which  /do  7iot  understand.  Although 
I  will  not  decisively  s;.y,  the  supposition  that  three  persons, 
or  agents,  or  beings,  or  G(k1s,  are  one  God,  "is  contrary  to 
reason  ;"  yet  I  dare  not  say  that  it  is  compatible  with  rea- 
son. Does  reason  teach  or  admit  the  existence  of  t/iree 
Gods  equal,  and  infinite  in  "  divine  attributes  ?"  Should 
3^ow  revolt  at  this  statement  as  polytheistic,  and  there- 
fore as  inadmissible,  let  me  ask — does  reason  teach  or  ad- 
mit the  existence  of  three  beings  equal  and  infinite  in  divine 
attributes  ?  Should  you  object  to  this  statement,  then,  let 
tlie  question  be, — does  reason  teach  or  admit  the  existence 
of  t/rree  agents  or  persons  equal,  and  infinite  in  divine  at- 
tributes ?  To  this  statement,  I  presume,  you  will  not  ob- 
ject. But  A^^hat  is  the  difference  between  three  Gods  or 
beings  equal  and  infinite  in  divine  attributes,  and  three 
agents  or  persons  equal  and  infinite  in  di\ine  attributes,? 
Must  not  these  attributes  have  a  subject  or  subjects  to 
Avhich  they  belong  ?  But  must  not  the  subject  or  subjects 
be  precisely  the  same,  whether  they  be  called  persons, 
agents,  beings,  or  Gods  ?  The  application  of  dift'erent 
names  to  beings,  or  thin.gs,  their  attributes  remaining  the 
same,  neither  produces,  nor  is  capable  of  producing  any 
alteration  or  change  in  the  beings  or  things  themselves. 
Can  you,  Sir,  j^erceive  any  other  tlian  a  mere  nominal 
difference  between  three  persons  possessed  of  infinite 
divii^e  attributes,  and  three  Gods  possessed  of  the  same 
attributes  ?  If  there  be  any  perceptible  difference,  most 
devoutly  do  I  v,ish  that  I  had  the  ability  to  perceive  it.  It 
does,  Sir,  appear  to  me  as  disingenuous, — -is  trifling  with 
a  most  serious  subject,  to  attempt  to  make  any  real  dis- 
tinction betvvcen  three  infinite  persons,  and  three  infinite 
Gods.  But  is  it  to  be  admitted  that  there  are  three  Gods 
possessing  equal  and  infinite  attributes?  I  do  not  see,  I 
confess,  vv  hy  this  should  not  be  admitted,  on  the  supposi- 


tion  of  the  existence  of  three  persons  possessing  such  attri- 
butes. Yet  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  the  supposition 
"as  matter  ot  fact." — Nor,  were  this  admitted,  do  I  see 
how  I  can  "  understand"  that^  three  Gods,  or  beings,  or 
agents,  or  persons,  equal  in  divine  and  infinite  attributes, 
either  do,  or  can  exist,  as  one  God.  I  am,  I  assure  you, 
completely  confounded  when  I  attempt  to  contemplate 
three  such  existences,  each  omnipresent,  omniscient,  om- 
nipotent, &,c.  and  each  "  willing,  doing,  and  enjoying"  what 
the  others,  will,  do,  and  enjoy,  and  yet  being  but  one. 

*'  The  Father,  Son,  and  H()ly  Spirit,  (says  the  Doctor,) 
are  either  tiiree  divine  persons,  lunted  in  one  Godhead^  or 
else  three  separate  Divine  Beings.^  Tlie  former  is  the 
orthodox  doctrine."  But  is  it  not  difficult  to  conceive  of, 
and  contemplate  three  divine  persons  otherwise  than  so 
many  separate  and  distinct  beings  ?  If  we  ascribe  to  each 
divine  and  equal  attributes,  is  it  not  necessary  to  consider 
each  as  separate  from  the  others  ?  If  "  what  the  Father 
knows,  the  Son  knows,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  kno\'\'s  ;"-7-if 
"  what  the  Father  wills,  the  Son  wills,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
wills;"  if  "  what  the  Father  does,  the  Son  does,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  does;"  arid  if  "what  the  Father  enjoys,  the 
Son  enjoys,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  enjoys,"  is  not  the  knowl- 
edge, the  will,  the  actions,  and  the  enjoyments  of  each,  his 
own  knowledge,  will,  actions  and  enjoyments  ?  Must  we 
not  then  contemplate  each  as  separate  from  the  others "? 
To  me.  Sir,  it  is  extremely  difficult,  to  say  the  least,  to 
conceive  of  a  person  who  knows,  and  wills,  and  acts,  and 
enjoys,  and  yet  is  not  a  separate  and  distinct  person  or  being 
from  all  other  persons.  The  idea  that  three  persons,  each 
possessed  of  "divine  attributes,"  have,  or  can  have  a  com- 
munity of  one  and  the  same  perception  and  will,  of  the 
same  individual  act,  and  enjoyment ;  or  that  these  things 
are  common  to  the  three,  is  too  mysterious  for  my  appre- 
hension. Is  not  the  supposition  unintelligible?  Is  it  not 
as  contrary  to,  as  it  is  above  reason  ? 

But  let  us  see  again  what  the  Doctor  says  re- 
specting the  subject.  "  It  appears  that  the  unity 
of  the  three  Divine  Persons  is  the  highest  and  most 
perfect  possible,  not  merely  a  moral  union^  such  as 
exists  between  holy  men  and  angels,  but  an  essential  one- 
ness^ such  as  constitutes  one  Godhead."  This  unity,  then, 
is  morale  although  not  simply  or  wholly  so.  It  is"  such 
as  exists  between  holy  men  and  angels."  But  what  is  the 
unity  vvhich  exists  between  these  holy  beings,  but  that  of 
concord,  or  an  agreement  in  afection,  design  and  pursuit  ? 
This  unity,  however  "  high  and  perfect,"  is  so  far  from 
constituting  them  one  individual  being,  that  it  has  no  ten- 
dency to  such  an  effect.  As  the  unity  then  of  the  three 
Divine  Persons  is  the  same  in  kind  with  diat  wliich  exists 


between  *'  holy  men  and  angels,"  it  neither  docs,  nor  can, 
it  appears  to  me,  constitute  them  one  God.  Is  it  not  in- 
deed wholly  incompatible  with  such  a  supposition?  But  the 
Dr.  adds  that  this  unity  consists  in."  an  essential  oneness, 
such  as  constitutes  one  Godhead,"  or  "  one  God." — Es- 
sential oneness — What  arc  we  to  understand  by  this? 
That^  the  three  persons  have  between  them  one,  and  but 
one  individual  consciousness,  understanding,  will,  &c. 
But  can  such  a  oneness  be  consistent  with  a  7voral  unity ^ 
such  as  exists  between  holy  men  and  angels  ?  Can  there 
be  any  concord,  or  agreemcnc  in  affection,  design,  and  pur- 
suit between  them,  if  they  are  so  united  as  to  be  but  one 
mdividnal  God  ?  Can  a  moral  union  exist  between  the  one 
God/  Tht  Dr.  has  indeed  attempted  an  explication  of  the 
essential  072e7i€ss  of  the  three  divine  persons.  He  supposes 
that  "all  theknowkdge,  and  wisdom,  and  power,  and  good- 
ness^ of  the  Father  are  also  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Holy 
Spirit ;"  and  that  all  these  perfections  va  hich  are  both  "  in 
the  Father  and  in  the  Son,  are  also  in  the  Holy  Spirit." — 
This  representation  is  to  my  mind  not  a  little  ambiguous, 
if  ue  are  to  understand  l3y  it  that  the  Father  possesses  indi- 
vidual, separate,  or  distinct  kno\A'ledge,  ^visdom,  power  and 
jgoodness,  and  yet  that  these  verj^  attributes  or  properties 
are  in  the  Son,  I  VAould  ask — can  they  be  ?"«,  and  belong  to 
the  Father  and  the  Son  at  the  same  time  ?  Is  it  not  very 
difficult  to  conceive  that  the  property  oi  one  person  or  being 
should  be  the  proj^erty,  and  in  the  possession,  at  the  same 
time,  of  another  person  or  being  ?  If  the  knowledge,  wis- 
dom, &c.  of  the  Father  be  in  the  Son,  must  not  these  attri- 
butes be  exclusively  the  Son's ?  And  if  the  knowledge, 
wisdom,  &c.  which  are  in  the  Father  and  in  the  Son,  are 
also  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  they  not  be  the  exclusive 
attributes  of  the  Spirit '?  If  all  divine  attributes  exist  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  an.d  these  attributes  properly  belong  to  the 
Spirit,  as  a  person,  I  do  not  see  that  they  either  are,  or  can 
be  the  attributes,  either  of  the  Son  or  the  Father.  But  if 
Doctor  W.  will  not  allow  this  to  be  a  just  representation  of 
the  "essential  oneness  ofthe  three  Divine  Persons,"  I  would 
ask  vvhetlier  h^e  is  to  be  understood  as  conveying  the  idea, 
tiiat  each  is  a  sharer — an  equal  sharer  of  one  common  stock 
of  knowledge,  wisdom,  power  and  goodness,  and  in  such 
a  mysterious  manner,  that  each  may  be  considered  as 
possessing  and  using  the  whole  ?  Whether  this  explication 
of  the  essential  oneness  under  consideration  meets  the  Doc- 
tor's views,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  I  can  only  say  that 
it  appears  to  me  the  most  rational  and  consistent  that  can 
be  given.  Yet  it  is  attended  with  difficulties,  to  my  mind, 
which,  if  not  invincible,  are  so  great  that  I  see  not  how  they 
are  satisfactorily  to  be  removed. 


But  apprehensive  that  I  may  not  ha^'e  ekicidated  the 
Doctor's  meaning,  I  will  make,  at  present,  no  further  in- 
quiries respecting  it,  but  examine  the/?;*oo/"of  his  theory 
according  to  his  own  statement  and  explanation  of  it. — ■ 
"  The  one  Jehovah  exists  in  a  Trinity,  called  the  Futher, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  These  we  call  persons.'''' 
These  persons  "  are  really  and  truly  Intelligent  agents,  each 
possessing  all  divine  attributes,  and  performing  in  union 
with  the  other  two,  all  divine  works."  These  "  intelligent 
agents,"  are  be'ings ;  and  each  of  these  beings,  "  is  GodJ'^ 

The  Proof 

Of  this  triune  doctrine,  as  exhibited  by  Doctor  Worcester, 
is  now  to  be  examined.  In  support  of  it,  he  observes. 
Letter  2,  p.  30,  "  On  the  authority  of  the  scriptures,  ortho- 
dox christians  believe  that  the  owq  Jehovah  exists  in  a 
Trinity,  called  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
These  we  call  persons  ;  because  they  apply  to  each  other 
the  i^ersonal  pronouns,  /,  Thou,  and  He,  and  to  themselves 
together,  the  plurals  we,  us,  and  ow?-." — If  this  application 
of  the  personal  pronouns  to  each  other  by  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  to  be  admitted  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  I  do  not  see  that  it  would  prove  that  the  "  One  Jehovah 
exists  in  a  Trinity."  But  is  it  a  fact  that  the  application  of 
the  personal  pronouns  is  ever  made  according  to  Dr.  W.'s 
statement  ?  Do  either  of  the  persons  ever  apply  the  personal 
pronoun  /,  to  the  other  persons  ?  Does  either  the  Father 
or  the  Son  apply  the  pronoun  Thou  to  the  Spirit  ?  Or 
does  the  Spirit  apply  either  of  the  pronouns  to  the  Father, 
or  the  Son,  or  to  himself?  Does  the  Son  ever  apply  the 
plurals  7ve,  us,  our,  to  himself,  to  the  Father,  and  to  the 
Spirit  connectedly  ?  Or  does  the  Spirit  ever,  in  like  man- 
ner, make  the  application  ?  And  is  it  not  very  doubtful, 
to  say  the  least,  whether  the  Father  ever  applies  the  plural 
pronouns  to  himself,  his  Son  and  his  Spirit,  collectively 
considered  ?  The  Doctor's  statement  being  thus  essen- 
tially incorrect,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  it  in  favor 
of  his  hypothesis. 

"  We  believe,"  continues  the  Doctor,  "  this  doctiine, 
because  we  find  it  in  those  scriptures,  which  we  receive  as 
given  by  divine  inspiration.  In  the  scriptures  the  original 
Hebrew  name,  by  which  the  Supreme  Being  is  most  com.- 
\non\y  cdXkid., 'is  plural  fAleim,  Gods."^  Bu:  does  the 
circumstance,  that  the  word  Aleim,  or  Elohim,  is  plural  in 
its  termination,  prove  that  it  has  a  plural  imp6rt  ?  If  so,  it 
proves  only  that  there  are  more  Gods  than  one ;  but  without 
determining  the  ^^recise  number.  .  But  yr  we  to  admit  the 
existence  of  a  plurality  of  Gods — supreme  Gods  ?  This  I 
B 


i.O 

dare  nnt.  But  itAIeim  has  a  plural  signification,  and  ought 
to  be  rendered  Gods,  instead  of  God,  or  Jehovah,  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  polytheism  to  be  admitted  as  a  Bible  truth  ! 
From  this  single  consideration  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that 
the  word  in  question,  is,  in  its  import,  with  application  to 
God,  strictly  singular.  Besides,  is  not  this  word  in  the 
Septuagint  always  translated  by  the  >vord  Theos^  in  the 
singular  number  ?  But  did  not  the  translators,  who  were 
native  Hebrews,  and  perfectly  understood  their  own  lan- 
guage, consider  the  word  Aleun  to  be  singular  in  its  import  ? 
And  does  not  this  circumstance  afford  the  strongest  e\'i- 
dence  that  it  is  not  plural  in  its  sense  and  meaning  ?  I 
would  further  ask — Is  it  not  very  strange  that  if  the  word 
Aleun  import  plurality  of  persons,  that  the  v/ord  corres- 
ponding to  it  in  the  Afew  Testament  should  always  be 
singular,  and  especially  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
thought  to  be  revealed  here  much  more  clearly  than  in  the 
Old  Testament  scriptures  ?  Did  our  Saviour  give  the  least 
intimation  when  he  quoted  Deut.  vi.  4.  "  Hear,  O  Israel, 
the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord,"  that  the  word  under  con- 
sideration signified  plurality  of  persons  in  the  one  God  ? 
Rather  did  he  not  seem  clearly  to  convey  the  idea  that  God 
is  but  one  person  ?  I  would  further  ask — Is  not  this  same 
word,  and  other  Hebrew  words  of  plural  termination,  used 
to  designate  a  false  divinity  and  one  numerical  man  ?  As 
you  will  not  question  that  this  is  indeed  the  case,  ought 
you  not  to  consider  this  circumstance  as  affording  very 
strong  and  presumptive  proof,  that  the  word  Aleim^  the 
original  name  by  which  the  Supreme  Being  is  called,  does 
not  express  plurality  of  persons  ? 

"In  coincidence  with  this  plural  name,  other  plural  words, 
(the  Doctor  observes,)  are  used.  *  Let  us  make  man  in 
OUR  own  image,'  &c.  *' This  remarkable  use  of  plurals 
which  runs  through  the  Hebrew  scriptures,"  he  thinks, 
"  clearly  denotes  a  plurality  of  persons."  But  if  the  use  of 
the  plural  pronoim,  in  speaking  of  God,  denotes  plurality/  of 
persons  in  God,  ought  it  not  to  be  admitted  that  a  similai" 
use  of  a  singular  pronoun,  denotes  that  God  is  but  one  per- 
son ?  The  fact  however  is,  that  "  this  remarkable  use  of 
plurals,  which  runs  through  the  Hebrew  scriptures,"  but 
very  seldom  occurs.  The  singular  pronoun,  /,  Me  ;  Thou, 
Thee  ;  He,  Him,  is  almost  invariably  used  in  speaking  of 
God.  But  does  not  this  circumstance  furnish  very  strong 
evidence  that  God  is  one  person  only  ?  Do  not  princes 
and  men  of  distinction,  when  speaking  of  themselves  indi- 
vidually, very  frequently  use  the  plural  pronoun  JFe,  Our, 
Us  ?  And  is  not  Dr.  W.  himself  in  the  habit  of  thus  using 
it  ?  We  have  indeed  a  very  considerable  number  of  exam- 
ples of  this  kind  in  the  scriptures.    When  Rehoboam  took 


11 

eounsel  with  the  young  men  that  were  brought  up  with 
him,  about  a  grievance  and  request  of  his  subjects,  he  uses 
with  respect  to  himself,  the  plural  pronoun.  ^^"^5 
counsel  give  ye,  that  we  may  answer  this  people  ?"  And 
St.  Paul,  you  must  be  sensible,  in  speaking  of  himself,  very 
frequently  uses  the  plural  pronoun  we^  our^  us.  But  are 
we  hence  to  infer  that  in  Rehoboam,  and  St.  Paul,  there 
was  a  Trinity  of  persons  ?  Is  it  safe — is  it  justifiable  then 
toinfertheexistenceof  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  God,  be- 
cause in  speaking  of  himself,  he  uses  a  very  few  times^  the 
same  plural  pronoun  ?  Since  this  majestic  expression  is 
so  common  among  men,  considered  as  individuals,  is  it  to 
be  wondered  at  that  the  Great  Supreme  should  sometimes 
employ  it  ?  Is  it  not  rather  a  subject  of  wonder  that  the 
examples  are  so  few  ?  Is  it  not  pertinent  also  to  remark, 
that  in  most,  if  not  in  all  languages,  there  are  words  of  plural 
termination  which  have  a  singular  meaning  ?  Besides,  it 
is  not  only  an  idiom  of  the  Hebrew  language,  but  perfectly 
agreeable  to  its  syntax^  that  "  words  which  express  ma' 
jesty,  h.c.  are  often  put  in  the  plural."  On  supposition, 
then,  that  God  is  but  one  person,  it  cannot  be  considered 
an  impropriety  that,  in  speaking  of  himself,  he  should^  use 
the  plural  pronoun,  JVe^  Our^  Us.  But  on  supposition 
that  he  is  three  persons,  agents,  or  beings,  would  it  not  be 
contrary  to  the  established  usages  of  all  speech,  were  he  to 
employ  the  singular  pronoun  /,  My,  Me  ?  Although  a 
single  person,  in  speaking  of  himself,  often  employs  this 
plural  pronoun,  it  is  never  the  case  that  several  persons,  in 
speaking  of  themselves,  employ  it  in  the  singular.  These 
things  considered,  I  cannot  but  strongly  apprehend,  to  say 
the  least,  that  Dr.  W.'s  proof  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in 
God  from  this  remarkable  use  of  pku-als  is  essentially  de- 
fective. 

As  a  further  proof  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  "  exist  as  one  God,"  Dr.  W.  observes.  Letter  3, 
p.  24,  that  "  the  scriptures  do  abundantly  ascribe  to  each 
of  the  adorable  Three,  the  same  divine  names,  attributes, 
works,  and  honours."  This  positive,  and  confident,  and 
unqualified  assertion,  has  frequendy  been  made  by  advo- 
cates for  the  Trinitarian  theory.  And  to  this,  it  is  not  un- 
likely, that  the  unshaken  belief  of  many  serious  christians 
in  that  theory,  is  in  a  great  measure  to  be  traced.  Nor, 
admitting  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  is  it  a  matter  of  won- 
der, that  the  doctrine  should,  bv  so  many,  be  embraced. 
Yet  It  may  be  a  question,  whether,  if  the  assertion  were 
strictly  true,  it  would  not  rather  support  polytheism,  than 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But  is  the  assertion,  my  dear 
Sir,  to  be  admitted  as  true  ?  Although  I  will  not  positive- 
ly sax,  m  contradiction -to  Dr.  W.  and  others,  that  it  is  not 


12 

true,  yet  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  that  I  cannot  find 
evidence  that  it  is  true.  But  on  the  su imposition  that  the 
scriptures  do  ascribe  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  "  the  siime  divine  names,  attributes,  works,  and 
honors,"  may  it  not,^  nevertheless,  be  a  question,  whether 
the  scriptures  so  ascribe  them  to  the  "  adorable  "I'hree,"  as 
to  prove,  either  that  they  are  three  persons  equally  divine, 
or  that  they  exist  as  one  God  ?  what  the  proper  answer  to 
this  question  should  be,  may  more  salisH^.torily  appear  in 
another  place.  I  will  only  add  here,  that  I  think  Dr.  W. 
has  expressed  his  belief,  in  relation  to  the  subject,  in  too 
strong-,  decisive  and  unguarded  a  manner. 

Page  25,  of  his  Third  Letter,  Dr.  Worcester  observes, 
'^  that  in  the  institution,  by  Avhich  we  are  initiated  into  the 
christian  community,  a  solemn  act  of  \vorship  is  prescrib- 
ed to  be  done  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  union  with  the  other 
Divine  Persons.  The  high  command  is,  '  Go,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  Name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Shall  man 
then  dare  to  '  put  asunder,  what  God  has  joined  together,' 
m  the  \Qvy  name  and  nature  of  God  P^ — On  this  text,  as 
proof  of  his  theory,  the  Doctor  seems,  with  much  confi- 
dence, to  rely.  "But  whether  it  affords  sufficient  ground 
for  this,  I  would  query. — Because  three  are  here  mention- 
ed, is  it  necessary  to  infer,  either  that  they  are  three  divine 
and  equal  persons,  or  agents,  or  beings,  or  Gods  ?  In  com- 
missioning his  apostles,  one  of  the  Three,  (the  Son,)  says, 
"  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth." 
But  does  not  this  seem  very  strongly  to  imply  that  the  Son 
is  dependent  on,  and  inferior  to  the  Father,  who  gave  him 
the  poorer  ?  Is  it  not  "  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  re- 
teive  .^"  And  is  it  not  a  truth,  "  and  without  all  contradic- 
tion, that  the  less  is  blessed  of  the  better  ?"  God  the  Fath- 
er, of  w  hom,  and  through  whom,  and  to  whom  are  all 
thiiigs,  gives  to  all  liberally,  but  receives  from  none.  I 
would  query  further — whether  the  form  of  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism is  to  be  considered  as  strictly  implying  an  act  of  re- 
ligious worslrip  ?  The  words  of  the  institution  do  not  seem 
to  imply  any  address  either  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the 
Holy  Spirit,  What  then  is  there  in  the  words,  or  in  the 
2/5-<?ofthe  words,  in  relation  to  baptism,  of  the  nature  of 
'.vorship  ?  But  will  the  circumstance  that  the  names  of  the 
Three  arc  joined  together,  be  urged  as  proof  that  they  are 
equal  persons,  or,  that  they  are  o;?^'  God  ^  This,  I  think, 
cannot  be  urged  with  much  force.  It  is  not  uncommon 
with  the  sacred  Avriters  to  mention  God  and  the  creature 
together,  and  in  as  solemn  a  manner,  as  the  Three  are 
Tiuentioned  in  the  text  under  consideration.  One  or  two 
instances  will  suffice  as  a  specimen,    "  And  all  the  con- 


gregation  blessed  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers,  and  bowed 
down  their  heads,  and  worshipped  the  Lord,  and  the 
kingy  "  I  charge  thee  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christy  and  the  elect  angels^  that  thou  observe  these  things," 
&c.  Is  king  David,  or  are  the  elect  angels,  to  be  consider- 
ed as  equal  to,  or  one  with  God,  because  they  are  men- 
tioned in  so  intimate  and  solemn  connexion  with  him  ?  or 
is  it  to  be  supposed  that  there  was  no  difference  in  the 
worship  paid  by  the  Israelites  to  their  God,  and  their  tem- 
poral king  ?  But  will  it  be  urged,  that  baptizing  in  the 
72«;72(?  of  a  person,  furnishes  clear  proof  of  the  divinity  of 
that  person  ?  If  this  be  admitted,  will  not  the  proof  go  too 
far?  How  many  were  baptized  unto  Moses^  and  unto 
Jo/m  ?  But  to  be  baptized  unto  Moses  and  John  may  be, 
and  probably  is  equivalent  to  being  baptized  in  the  name 
of  Moses  and  John.  Yet  neither  the  baptist,  nor  Moses, 
was  a  divine  person.  Besides,  if  baptizing  in  the  name  of 
a  person  imply  the  divinity  of  that  person,  can  it  reasona- 
bly be  supposed  that  the  apostle  Paul  would  have  asked 
the  Corinthian  christians,  w  hether  they  had  been  baptized 
in  his  name  !  Farther- — It  seems  to  be  worthy  of  particular 
remark,  that  the  form  of  baptism  under  review  was  never 
used,  so  far  as  w^e  know%  in  the  apostolic  age.  By  the  sa- 
cred records  we  are  assured  that  converts  to  Christianity 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  or  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  But  they  make  no  mention  of  baptism  hav- 
ing been  performed  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Is  it  not  then  highly  probable 
that  baptism,  whether  it  be  received  in  the  form  of  words 
prescribed  by  Christ,  or  in  his  name  only,  is  to  be  consid- 
ered as  an  expression  of  a  firm  belief  in,  and  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  truth  of  christianitj-,  which,  by  the  appoint- 
ment and  direction  of  the  Father,  was  promulgated  by 
Jesus  Christ,  and  confirmed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Baptism 
may  also  express  dedication  to  God,  and  obligation  on  the 
part  of  the  persons  dedicated,  to  observ^e  and  do  whatever 
God  has  revealed  by  his  Son,  the  truth  of  which  he  has  es- 
tablished, by  the  stupendous  signs  and  wonders  performed 
by  his  Spirit.  Whether  any  thing,  and  if  any  thing,  what, 
and  how  much  more  is  implied  in  christian  baptism,  I  pre- 
tend not  to  decide. 

The  happiness  which  results  from  society  among  equals, 
is  a  consideration  which  Dr.  Worcester  thinks,  affords 
proof  that  God  exists  as  a  Trinity  of  persons.  Agreeably 
he  observes.  Letter  3d,  p.  34,  "  In  the  most  Holy  Three 
in  One,  we  see  what  can  never  be  seen  in  a  single  Divine 
Person  :  we  see  a  society,  infinitelj'^  perfect  and  blessed. 
When  we  turn  our  thoughts  from  a  Trinity  to  one  Divine 
Person,  inhabiting  eternity,  in  solitary  existence,  we  find 


I 


14 

it  impossible  to  conceive  how  lie  can  be  happy.  If  he  ex- 
isted in  one  solitary  person,  where  could  he  find  an  ade- 
quate object  of  infinite  love,  and  how  could  he  be  infinitely 
happy  ?  when  we  contemplate  a  Trinity,  a  far  different 
view  is  presented  to  our  minds.  God  is  love.  The 
Tlii'ee  adorable  Persons,  unlimited  in  all  perfections  and 
excellencies,  inhabit  eternity  together  ;  dwell  everlastingly 
in  each  other,  in  mutual,  perfect,  unmeasurable  love." — 
"  This  is  a  theme  on  which  my  mind  delights  to  dwell ; 
and  which  I  cannot  exchange  for  the  solitary  Deity,  and 
the  philosophical  heaven  of  Unitarians." 

What,  my  dear  Sir,  am  I  to  think — what  shall  I  say  of 
this  representation  of  the  "  Holy  Three  in  One  !"  Am  1 
to  think  that  one  divine  person,  or  being,  "'  unlimited  in 
all  perfections  and  excellencies,"  cannot  possibly  "  be  hap- 
py ^'''^ — that  He  cannot  "  find  an  adequate  object  of  infinite 
love," — and  that  we  cannot  find  an  object  in  one  "  solitary 
.Deity"  on  which  the  pious  mind  can  delight  to  dwell !" 
In  stating,  and  in  the  contemplation  of  these  queries,  I 
cannot  but  realize  confused,  strange,  and  painful  emotions. 
If  one  person,  of  all,  and  unlimited  perfections,  cannot  be 
happy,  but  in  society ;  and  if  to  be  associated  with  one 
other  such  ])erson,  were  not  sufficient  to  make  him  happy, 
is  it  not  difficult  to  conceive  that  an  association  with  two 
other  such  persons,  would  be  competent  to  his  complete 
happiness  ?  Vv^hy  would  not  the  happiness  of  the  individ- 
ual be  increased  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  the  num- 
ber of  persons  associated?  Besides,  if  one  person  of  all  in- 
finite perfections,  cannot,  in  those  perfections,  find  an  ade- 
quate object  of  infinite  love^^ — and  if  in  two  such  persons 
he  cannot  find  this  object,  is  it  not  difficult  to  conceive  that 
this  adequate  object  can  be  found  in  three  such  persons  ? 
Would  not  this  object  increase  in  excellence,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  increase  of  such  supposed  persons  !  These 
questions,  I  am  sensible,  seem  to  border  on  an  irreverent 
treatment  of  a  most  serious  and  solemn  subject.  But  they 
are  questions  which  Dr.  W's.  statements  strongly  sug- 
gested to  my  mind,  and  which,  I  think,  naturally  grow  out 
of  his  statements.  In  proposing  tliem,  however,  I  feel  no 
emotion  of  levity,  or  of  irreverence.  The  very  reverse  is 
the  case. — I  am  filled  with  commiseration,  mingled  witli 
astonishment. 

Pages  27,  28,  Letter  3d,  Dr.  Worcester  speaks  of  "  the 
many  thousands  of  holy  men  in  the  orthodox  church  of 
Christ,  who,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  to  the  present, 
have  worshipped  the  Faiher,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spir- 
it," and  as  having  been  *'  valiant  for  the  truth,"  &c.  Al- 
though in  this  passage  he  does  not  expressly  say,  that 
christians,  generally,  in  the  first  and  purest  ages  of  chris- 


15 

tianity,  worshipped  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  three  equal  persons  in  one  God,  yet  I  think  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  he  means  to  convey  this  idea  ;  as 
otherwise  they  could  not,  in  his  view,  have  been  "  valiant 
for  the  truth."  And  that  he  considers  this  supposed  fact 
as  a  circumstantial  evidence  in  favor  of  the  triune  doc- 
trine,  is  not  to  be  questioned.  Nor  is  the  fact,  if  satisfacto- 
rily supported,  to  be  considered  as  a  weak  argument  for  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine.  But  has  the  Dr.  supported  the  sup- 
posed fact  ?  I  think  not.  His  quotations  from  the  "  prim- 
itive Fathers,"  in  support  of  the  doctrine,  p.  29,  do  not,  to 
my  mind,  afford  satisfactory  proof,  that  the  orthodox  doc- 
trine of  the  primitive  church  was  trinitarian.  They  admit 
of  a  fair  construction,  I  conceive,  which  would  by  no 
means  support,  or  even  favor  Dr.  W.'s  hypothesis  of  the 
Trinity.  That  primitive  christians  generally  considered 
both  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  of  God  as  divine  in  a  qualified 
sense,  and  worshipped  them  as  such,  is  perhaps  to  be  ad- 
mitted. But  that  they  believed  the  Son  and  Spirit  to  be 
consubstantial  and  co-equal  with  the  Father,  and  worship- 
ped them  in  this  character,  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit,  as 
I  do  not  find  sufficient  evidence  of  it. 

The  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  if  at  all,  but  very  little  arrest- 
ed the  attention  and  employed  the  pens  of  the  earliest  Fath- 
ers in  the  christian  church.  They  but  incidentally  touched 
upon  the  subject ;  and  when  they  did  this,  they  expressed 
themselves  in  a  loose,  if  not  inconsistent  manner.  Nor 
did  the  doctrine  appear  in  any  regular  form  before  the 
council  of  Nice,  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century. 
But  the  doctrine  as  contained  in  the  creed  of  that  council  is 
inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  Christ  was  without  origin^ 
or  God  of  himself.  In  this  creed  Christ  is  represented  as 
derived  from  his  Father,  and,  of  course,  as  not  properly 
equal  to  his  Father.  It  was  not  till  after  that  council  that 
the  "  divinity  of  Christ  was  carried  to  a  supreme  height." 
But  whether  the  Nicene  Fathers  are  to  be  considered  as 
having  been,  in  a  qualified  sense,  Trinitarians,  I  will  not 
decide.  Nor  will  I  peremptorily  say  that  the  earlier  Fath- 
ers were  not  so.  But  if  they  were,  even  in  the  most  lax 
sense  of  the  word,  I  know  not  how  to  account  for  it  that 
they  should  express  their  opinions  in  the  following  man- 
ner— "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  servant,  the  Son  of  God.  He  is 
Lord  of  the  people,  having  received  all  power  from  the  Fath-^ 
er."  "  Be  ye  imitators  of  Christ,  as  he  is  of  the  Father.'' 
**  He  never  did  any  thing,  but  what  that  God,  who  made  all 
things,  and  above  whom  there  is  no  God,  willed  that  he 
should  do,  or  say.  He  is  subservient  to  his  Father's  will^ 
and  only  called  God  by  way  of  figure."  "  The  Father  on- 
ly is  the  Good  i  Md  the  Saviour,  as  he  is  the  image  of  the 


16 

invisible  God,  so  he  is  the  image  of  his  goodness."  "  The 
Saviour  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  more  excelled  by  the 
Father,  than  he,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  excel  other  things." 
"  We  must  not  pray  to  any  created  being  ;  not  to  Christ 
himself*  but  only  to  God  the  Fatlier  of  all,  to  whom  our 
Saviour  himself  prayed."  "  The  Son  is  less  than  the  Fath- 
er, because  he  is  sanctified  by  him."  "  God  the  Father  is 
Maker  and  Creator  of  all,  who  alone  has  no  origin,  invisible, 
immense,  immortal,  eternal,  the  one  God,  to  whose  great- 
ness, majestj',  and  power,  nothing  can  be  preferred,  or  com- 
pared." "  If  Christ  had  been  uncreated,  and  likewise  un- 
begotten,  there  would  have  been  two  unbcgotten,  and 
therefore  two  Gods.  The  Son  does  nothing  of  his  own 
pleasure,  nor  does  he  come  of  himself;  but  in  all  things 
obeys  his  Father's  commands.  He  approved  his  fidelity 
to  God  ;  for  he  taught  that  there  is  one  God,  and  that  he 
only  ought  to  be  worshipped  ;  nor  did  he  ever  say  that  he 
was  God.  For  he  M'ould  not  have  preserved  his  allegiance, 
if,  being  sent  to  take  away  a  multiplicity  of  Gods,  and  to 
preach  one  God,  he  had  brought  in  another,  besides  that 
one."  "  Christ,  being  neither  the  Supreme  God,  nor  an 
angel,  is  of  a  middle  nature  between  them,  the  only  begot- 
ten Son  of  God."  "  It  is  allowed,  that  as  in  the  great  mul- 
titude of  believers,  who  admit  of  difterence  in  opinion, 
there  arc  some  who  say  that  the  Saviour  is  God  over  all; 
but  we  do  not  say  so,  who  believe  him  when  he  said,  mi/ 
Father  h  greater  than  /." 

These  quotations,  my  dear  Sir,  are  made  from  the  prim- 
itive Fathers  of  the  christian  church  \'\'ho  were  its  brightest 
ornaments  ;  and  from  whose  writings  modern  Trinitarians 
endeavor  to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. — Now, 
in  the  view  of  these,  and  many  more  similar  passages,  which 
occur  in  the  writings  of  these  Fathers,  I  cannot,  to  say  the 
least,  but  very  strongly  doubt  their  belief  in  the  Trinitarian 
doctrine.  Although  some  passages  occur  in  their  writings 
which,  separately  considered,  seem  to  countenance  this 
doctrine  ;  yet  so  many,  and  so  unambiguous  are  the  pas- 
sages to  be  foimd  in  them  in  opposition  to  it,  that  I  see 
not  how  it  can  reasonaijly  be  supposed  that  either  they, 
or  private  christians  generally,  were  believers  in  the  su- 
preme divinity  of  Christ,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

As  we  find  but  little  said  by  die  primitixe  Fathers 
respecting  the  character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  little 
not  favorable  to  the  idea  that  he  is  a  person  co-equal  w  ith 
the  Father,  there  is  much  reason  to  suppose  that  they  did 
not  believe  that  this  was  the  case. 

These  things  considered,  do  wo.  not  find  very  consider- 
able evidence,  at  least,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as 
it  is  held  by  Dr.  W.  and  others,  was  neither  taught  nor  be- 


17 

iieved  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  ?  For  had  they  believed 
and  taught  this  doctrine,  would  not  the  primitive  Fathers 
have  known  it,  as  some  of  them  were  contemporary  withKhe 
apostle  John  ?  But  had  they  learnt  this  doctrine  from  that 
inspired  apostle,  would  they  not,  in  the  most  explicit  and 
earnest  manner,  have  taught  and  inculcated  it  ?  The 
subject  has  certainly  a  strong  claim  to  our  serious 
and  candid  consideration  and  research.  If  it  be  true, 
as  Dr.  W.  seems  to  suppose,  that  holy  men,  generally, 
in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  churchy  worshipped  the  Father, 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  co-equal  persons  in  one 
God,  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  has  not  produced  more 
satisfactory  evidence  in  support  of  the  supposed  truth. — • 
With  respect  to  after  ages,  down  to  the  reform  :tinn  by 
Luther,  Calvin,  and  others,  the  Trinitarian  belief  and  wor- 
ship a])pear,  generally,  to  have  prevailed  in  the  christian 
church.  But  these  were  eminently  the  "  times  of  dark- 
ness." There  were,  however,  during  the  lapse  of  that  long 
and  dark  night,  dissenters  to  be  found  from  what  w^as 
deemed  the  orthodox  faith  and  worship.  Their  number, 
at  times,  was  verj^  considerable,  particularly  from  about 
the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century  to  the  time  of  the  refor- 
mation, a  period  of  more  than  300  years.  These  dissenters 
were  called  Waldenses  and  by  other  significant  and  appro- 
priate names.  Tliey  were  considered,  generally,  as  "  holy 
men."  In  "  morals  and  life  they  were  good ;  true  in 
words,  and  unanimous  in  brotherly  love  ;  blameless  and 
without  reproach  among  men,  and  obeying  the  divine  com- 
mands with  all  their  might."  Their  faith  was  simple. 
They  professed  to  "  believe  in  and  to  worship  one  God, 
through  the  one  Mediator^  and  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirits  And  the  probability  is  that  but  few,  if  any  of 
them,  \vere  believers  in,  or  worshippers  of  a  triune  God. 
Even  Trinitarian  writers  of  ecclesiastical  history  admit 
that  some  of  them  "  were  Arians,  Unitarians,  Sec."  The 
truth  seems  to  be  that  no  uniform  system  of  doctrines  was 
common  to  them  all ;  but  that  diversity,  in  both  religious 
opinion  and  modes  of  worship,  existed  among  them.  I 
am,  however,  far  from  being  satisfied  that  aiiy  of  them  held 
Dr.  W.'s  theory  of  the  Trinity.  But  these  "  holy  men," 
are  considered  by  Protestant  writers,  generally,  as  having 
constituted  the  true  church  of  Christy  during  the  dark  pe- 
riod in  which  tliey  existed.  I  cannot  but  think,  therefore, 
that  the  Dr.  has  expressed  his  belief  in  relation  to  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  partic- 
ularly in  the  primitive  ages  of  the  church,  in  a  very  un- 
guarded and  unjustifiable  manner.  Although  I  will  not 
positively  say  his  belief  is  unfounded,  yet  I  do  think  tl^t 


18 

he  has  been  very  far  from  producing  conclusive  or  even 
forcible  evidence  that  it  is  not.  I  think  also  that  the  Dr's. 
assertion,  p.  69,  is  not  sufficiently  supported.  He  says, 
*'  It  is  a  well  attested  fact,  that  by  the  great  body  of  chris- 
tians, from  the  days  of  the  aposdes  to  the  present,  the  de- 
niers  of  the  Trinity,  &c.  have  been  regarded  as  being  em- 
inently sub vcrters  of  the  gospel." — If  the  fact  be  indeed 
*'well  attested,"  although  it  is  not  to  be  admitted  as  de- 
cisive evidence  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinitj^ 
yet  it  may  reasonably  be  considered  as  a  witness  in  its 
favour.  But  this  supposed  fact  is  not,  I  conceive,  so  well 
attested  as  to  claim  belief.  The  fact,  probably,  is,  that 
but  few,  if  any  christians  in  tlie  first  and  purest  ages  of 
Christianity,  M'ere  Trinitarians,  in  Dr.  W.'s  sense  of  the 
word,  whatever  might  have  been  the  case  during  the  1000 
years'  reign  of  darkness  which  succeeded  those  evangel- 
ical ages.  But  however  this  may  have  been,  the  truth  or 
falsehood  of  the  Trinitarian  theory  is  to  be  tested  by  a  more 
sure  rule  than  that  of  general  opinion,  the  word  of  prophecy. 
To  this  it  "  becomes  us  to  take  more  diligent  heed." 

I  now  pass  to  an  examination  of  W'hat  Dr.  Worcester 
says  respecting  the  person  or  character 

OF    GOD    THE    TATHER. 

On  this  great  and  all  important  subject,  he  says  but 
litde  distinctly.  It  is  to  be  inferred,  however,  from  many 
passages  in  his  letters,  that,  although  ho.  professedly  admits 
the  existence  of  but  one  supreme  God,  he  does  not  believe 
that  this  God  is  the  Father,  or  that  the  Father  is  the  Su- 
preme God.  Nor  does  this  article  of  his  belief  appear 
merely  from  inference.  He  expressly  avows  it.  "The 
Father,"  he  says,  Letter  third,  page  25,  "  does  not 
exist  *  alone,'  nor  is  he  alone  the  Supreme  God." 
!But  yet,  page  29,  he  admits  that  the  Father  "  pos- 
sesses all  divine  attributes,"  and  is  truly  an  "  intelligent 
agent."  He  admits  also,  that  the  Father  is  "  God." — ^Now, 
my  dear  Sir,  let  me  ask — Is  it  indeed  true  that  the  Father 
is  an  intelligent  Agent,  and  God,  possessed  of  all  divine 
attributes,  and  ycX.  is  not  alojie  the  Supreme  God  ?  Does 
any  thing  more  than  all  divine  attributes  exist  in  the  Su- 
pre?7ie  God  ?  But  this  is  not  the  God  whom  Dr.  Worces- 
ter and  others  worship.  "  We  worship,"  he  says.  Letter  2, 
page  26,  addressing  Mr.  Channing,  "the  father,  son, 
AND  holy  ghost.  Do  you  worship  this  same  God  ?" 
Again,  Letter  1,  page  28,  "  The  God  whom  you  worship 
is  different  from  ours." — Although  I  would  indulge  the 
hope  that  the  difference  between  the  object  of  Trinitarian, 
and  the  object  of  Unitarian  worship,  is  rather  seeming  than 


19 

real,  yet  I  kiio\v  not  that  I  have  sufficient  ground  to  say 
that  the  difference  is  not  reaU  and  as  great  as  the  Dr.  seems 
to  suppose.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  he,  and  others  in 
sentiment  with  him,  profess  to  beUeve  in  one  Supreme 
God  as  the  only  adequate  object  of  supreme  worship. 
But  do  not  Unitarians  profess  the  same  belief  ?  And  do 
not  both  these  denominations  professedly  worship  this  same 
God  ?  So  far  as  I  know,  Unitarian  christians  of  all  descrip- 
tions avow  their  belief  in  the  existence  of  one  Supreme 
God  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes.  And  this  one  God 
they  professedly  worship.  But  do  Trinitarians  profess  to 
believe  in  and  to  worship  more  Supreme  Gods  than  one  ? 
However  ambiguously  they  may  express  their  sentiments 
on  this  subject,  they  will  not  admit,  I  presume,  that  they 
have  more  than  one  Supreme  God  as  the  object  of  their 
worship.  But  is  this  their  one  Supreme  God,  or  object 
of  worship,  possessed  of  more  than  one  class  or  set  of"  all 
divine  perfections  ?"  If  not,  how  does  he  differ  from  the 
Unitarian  God  "?  Most  earnestly  do  I  wish  for  a  clear  and 
satisfactory  answer  to  these  questions.  A  fair  and  candid 
answer  to  them  might  go  far  towards  a  mutual  understand- 
ing of  each  other,  between  Trinitarian  and  Unitarian 
christians,  and  towards  a  christian  union  and  intercourse 
between  them.  Nor  is  it  impossible  that  a  proper  answer 
to  the  questions,  would  go  far  tovvards  convincing  Trini- 
tarians,  that  the  Father  "  alone"  is  the  Supreme  God. 
But  however  this  might  be,  it  is  certainly  a  question  of 
no  common  importance,  whether  the  Scriptures  teach  this 
doctrine.  If  they  indeed  do,  the  doctrine  is  worthy  of  all 
acceptation.  Nor  can  we  reject  it  and  be  guiltless. 
What  then  say  the  Scriptures  in  respect  to  it  ? — Unto 
us  there  is  but  one  God^  the  Father^  of  whom  are  all  things. 
1  Cor.  viii.  6.  One  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above 
ally  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all.  Eph.  iv.  6.  What, 
my  dear  Sir,  is  the  most  obvious  import  or  meaning  of 
these  passages  with  respect  to  God  the  Father  ?  Is  it  not 
that  HE  ''''  alone'^\  is  the  Supreme  God  ?  As  there  is  but 
one  God,  as  this  one  God  is  the  Father,  and  as  all 
things  are  of  the  Father,  who  is  of  course  above  all,  does 
not  the  inference  seem  necessary  that  he  alone  is  the  Su- 
preme God  ? 

Do  not  the  Scriptures  limit  the  knowledge  of  some  fu- 
ture events  to  the  Father  ?  "  Of  that  day  and  hour," 
says  Christ,  "  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  of 
heaven,  but  my  Father  only."  Matt.  xxiv.  36.  The 
parallel  text  in  Mark  has  the  addition  of  the  Son — "  nei- 
ther the  Son,  but  the  Father."  This  express  declara- 
tion was  made  by  the  faithful  and  true  Witness.  He  ob- 
serves also,  Acts  i,  7,  addressing  his  apostles,  "  It  is  not 


so 

for  you  to  know  the  times,  or  the  seasons,  which  the  Fath- 
er hath  put  in  his  own  power."  Whether  by  that  day  we 
are  to  understand  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or  the  day 
of  judprncnt,  is  a  matter  of  but  Httle  consequence.  The 
important  inquiry  is,  whether  any  person  or  being,  aside 
from  the  Father,  knew,  previously  to  its  taking  place,  the 
precise  time  when  the  event  would  happen.  If  no  man 
knew  this,  or  no  owe — not  the  a;;?^'^*?/*  of  heaven,  nor  even 
the  Son  of  God  himself,  but  the  Father  onlij^  or  alone^ 
iTtiust  not  the  Father  alone  be  the  Supreme  God  ?  Can 
any  person  or  being  be  the  Supreme  God  who  does  not 
know,  and  foreknow  all  future  events, — a// future  "  times 
and  seasons  '?"  But  as  the  Father  hath  put  these  in  his  own 
power ^  I  cannot  but  apprehend  that  the  assertion,  "  the 
Fc  tiler  alone  i§  not  the  Supreme  God,"  was  made  by  Dr. 
W.  w  iihout  a  due  consideration  of  the  subject. 

Through  tiie  whole  of  the  Ne^A'-Testament  scriptures 
we  are  expressly  taught  that  the  Father  is  both  the  God 
and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Christ  also  ex- 
pressly ackno\vledges  him  as  his  God  and  Father.  As 
the  correctness  of  this  statement  will  not  be  questioned,  it 
were  needless  to  refer  to  particular  passages.  But  does 
not  this  title  seem  clearly  to  indicate  the  superiority,  and 
the  exclusive  supremacy  of  the  Father  ?  Is  it  not  difficult 
to  conceive  that  Jesus  Christ  should  have  a  God  over  him^ 
and  yet  that  he  himself  should  be  the  Supreme  God,  or 
equal  to  the  Supreme  God  ?  Or  that  God  should  be  his 
Father,  and  yet  that  he  himself  should  be  self  existent^ 
and  independent  ?  It  may  be  said,  I  am  sensible,  and  Dr. 
Worcester  does  not  hesitate  to  say  it.  Letter  3d,  p.  17, 
that  "  there  is  no  aljsurdity  in  saying  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
both  the  Son  of  God,  and  himself  God,"  "possessed  of 
all  divine  perrectio»is."  But  if  to  say  this  implies  no  ab- 
surdity, it  must  imply  a  dij/icultr/,  which  does  not  easily 
admit  of  a  satisfactory  solution.  Nor  do  I  see  how  it  can 
be  reconciled  \a  ith  the  declaration  that  "  there  is  one  God 
and  Father  of  all,  wlio  is  above  all,"  or  with  what  Christ 
himself  has  saicj  in  relation  to  the  subject — "  This  is  life 
eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  god, 
and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent.^^ 

The  scriptures  not  only  teach  that  "  the  Father"  is  the 
"'One  God,"  but  the  "  only  wise  God"  to  whom  "glory' 
through  Jesus  Christ"  is  to  be  ascribed  ; — that  he  is  the 
**  only  true  God,"  as  distinguished  f'om  Jesus  Christ ;  that 
lie  "  only  is  holy" — that  he  is  the  "  only  Potentate" — that 
he  "  only  hath  immortality."  Such  are  the  express  de- 
f^larations  of  scripture.  But  if  the  Father  is  the  onh/  wise, 
trife  and  holy  God — if  he  is  the  only  Potentate — if  he  on- 
/[y  hath  immortality,  must  not  he  -'  alond''^  be  the  Supreme 


21 

God  ?  Can  these  declarations  be  so  construed  as  fairly  to 
admit  the  supposition  that  his  glory  is  not  unrivalled? 

The  Scriptures  teach  us  thatthe  Father  is  possessed  of 
wisdom  in  the  highest  sense.  "  To  God  only  wise,  be 
glory  through  Jesus  Christ,  forever."  Rom.  xvi.  27. 
But  does  not  the  term  only  in  this  passage  seem  evidently 
to  exclude  from  Supreme  Divinity  all  other  persons  or  be- 
ings, even  Jesus  Christ  himself  ?  If  glory  is  to  be  given 
through  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Father  as  the  only  wise  God, 
must  not  the  Father  alone  be  the  Supreme  God  ? 

Do  not  the  scriptures  teach  us  that  the  Father  alone  is 
Almighty  !  The  word  Almighty ^  very  frequently  occurs 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  applied  to  the  Father^  as  his 
appropriate  character.  It  occurs  also  several  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  ancf  is  applied,  there  is  much  reason  to 
believe,  exclusweh/  to  the  Father.     "  We  give  thee  thanks, 

0  Lord  God  Almighty:'  Rev.  xi.  17.  "  And  he  (Clirist) 
treadeth  the  wine-press  of  the  fierceness  and  wrath  of  Al- 
mighty God."  Rev.  xix.  15.  "  And  I  heard  as  it  were  the 
voice  of  a  great  multitude,  and  as  the  voice  of  many  waters, 
and  as  the  voice  of  mighty  thunderings,  saying,  Alleluia  : 
for  the  Lord  God  Omnipotent  reigneth.  Let  us  rejoice  and 
be  glad,  and  give  honor  unto  him,  for  the  marriage  of  the 
Lamb  is  come."  Rev.  xix.  6,  7.  "  And  I  saw  no  temple 
therein  ;  (the  holy  city,  the  new  Jerusalem)  for  the  Lord 
God  Almighty,  and  the  Lamb  are  the  temple  of  it."  Rev, 
xxi.  22.  Is  Lamb  of  Go(/a  title  expressive  o^ omnipotence  ? 
Does  it  convey  the  idea  that  he  is  "  himself  God  ?"  Is  the 
honor  given  to  tlie  Lord  God  Omnipotent,  on  account  of 
the  marriage  of  the  Lamb,  consistent  with  the  supposition, 
that  the  Lamb  is  possessed  of  all  "  divine  attributes,"  and 
the  object  of  supreme  worship  ?  Or  is  his  treading  the 
wine-press  of  Almighty  God,  reconcilable  with  the  hypoth- 
esis that  he  is  himself  (he  Almighty  ?      As  we  are  assured, 

1  Tim.  vi.  15,  that  the  Father  is  the  ^^  only  Potentate,'' 1 
am  afraid  to  say  or  think  that  he  alone  is  not  the  Supreme 
God. 

Do  not  the  scriptures  teach  us  that  God  the  Father  is 
the  great  original  or  Creator  of  all  things  ?  '■  Thou  art  the 
God,  even  thou  alone,  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  ; 
thqu  hast  made  heaven  and  earth."  2  Kings,  xix.  15.  "  In 
^x  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea  and  all 
that  in  them  is."  Ex.  xx.  11.  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord, 
to  receive  glory,  and  honor,  and  power ;  for  thou  hast 
created  all  things  ;  and  for  thy  pleasure  they  are  and  were 
created."  Rev.  iv.  11.  Many  other  passages  ascribe  the 
work  of  creation  to  God  the  Father  as  the  Great  and 
Original  Efficient,  In  whatever  sense  the  work  of  creation 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  Jesus  Clirist,  yet  may  we  not  reasonably 


22 

conclude,  that  it  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  him  as  the  first,  or 
original  cause  ?  For  "to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the 
Father,  of  whom  are  all  things  ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  whom  are  all  things" — "  by  whom  he  made  the 
worlds" — "  by  whom,  and  for  whom  all  things  were 
created."  If  all  things  are  of  the  one  God,  even  the 
Father,  and  only  by  or  through  Jesus  Christ ; — if  the 
Father  made  the  worlds^  although  it  were  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  Jesus  Christ;  and  although  he  tlius  made 
them  for  Jesus  Christ — to  be  in  subjection  to  him,  must 
not  the  work  of  creation  be  ascribed  to  the  Father  as  the 
Prinie  or  Original  Agent  ?  In  this  sense  are  wo,  not  to 
consider  him  as  having  "  stretched  out  the  heavens  alone^'''' 
and  as  having  "  spread  abroad  the  earth  by  himself  V  In 
this  sense  God  the  Father  appears  to  have  been  considered 
as  the  Creator  of  the  universe  by  christians  generally,  if  not 
universally  in  the  first  and  purest  ages  of  the  church.  If 
this  were  not  the  case,  how  is  it  to  be  accounted  for  that 
the  work  of  creation  is  ascribed  exclusively  to  "  God  the 
Father  Almighty,"  in  the  apostles'  creed,  which,  of  all 
others,  in  the  christian  church,  is  the  most  ancient,  and 
which  was  considered  by  the  "  great  body  of  pious  and 
godly  christians"  as  strictly  orthodox  ?  But  does  not  this 
creed  in  the  most  decisive  manner  ascribe  the  work  of 
creation  exchisively  to  the  Father  as  the  First  Cause,  or 
Great  Efficient  ?  Do  we  not  find  also  the  work  of  creation 
thus  exclusively  ascribed  to  the  Father  in  the  Nicene  creed, 
which  was  signed  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century 
by  no  less  than  three  hundred  and  fourteen  bishops,  and 
which  was  generally  received  as  orthodox  by  the  christian 
church  ?  However  ambiguous  and  exceptionable  this 
creed  may  be  in  several  of  its  expressions,  yet  it  seems 
very  clearly  to  ascribe  the  work  of  creation  to  the  Father 
as  the  Great  Supreme.  "  I  believe,"  is  the  language  of 
the  creed,  "  in  one  God,  the  Father,  Almighty,  maker  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible ; 
and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,"  &c.  The  members  of  the  council  who  composed 
and  adopted  this  creed  appear  to  have  believed  that  what- 
ever of  divinity  Jesus  Christ  possessed,  was  derived  from 
the  Father,  and  that  he  was  not  without  origi?i,  or  of  him- 
wlf,  as  the  Father  was.  The  equality  of  Christ  to  the 
Father,  or  his  supreme  and  independent  divinity,  is 
language  which  we  shall  not  find,  I  believe,  or  any  thing 
equivalent  to  it,  till  a  later  and  more  corrupt  period  of  the 
church. 

Do  not  the  scriptures  teach  us  that  the  Father  alone  is 
the  living  God?  Jesus  Christ  instructed  his  disciples  to 
consider  the  Father  as  *'  the  living  Father y^^  and  that  he 


23 

himself  "  lived  by  the  Father."  Agreeably  Peter,  speaking 
of  his  own,  and  of  the  faith  of  the  other  disciples,  earnestly 
says,  "We  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.'"  John  vi.  69.  Paul  and 
Barnabas  urge  tl-ie  inhabitants  of  Lystra  "  to  turn  from 
their  vanities  to  the  livmg  God,''''  Acts  xiv.  15.  ^  The  high 
priest  adjures  Christ  by  "  the  hving  God ;^''  which  shews 
that  this  title  or  character,  with  application  to  the  Father, 
was  well  known  and  in  frequent  use.  In  a  very  considera- 
ble number  of  places  in  scripture  it  is  applied  to  the 
Father,  but  never  to  Jesus  Christ.  Now  as  the  title,  "  the 
living  God,''"'  is  thus  appropriate  and  discriminating  ;  and 
as  the  life  of  which  Christ  is  possessed  is,  by  his  own 
declaration,  the  gift  of  his  Father,  I  cannot  but  think  the 
assertion  that  "  the  Father  alone  is  not  the  Supreme  God,'* 
indicative  of  too  much  confidence,  and  the  want  of  due 
attention  to  the  great  and  solemn  subject. 

Do  not  the  scriptures  teach  us  that  the  Father  alone  is 
hob  I  and  good,  and  true  in  the  highest  sense  ?  The  song 
of  Moses  and  the  Lamb  is  thus  sung  by  heavenly  inhabit- 
ants, "  Great  and  marvellous  are  thy  works,  O  Lord  God 
Almighty  ;  just  and  true  are  thy  ways,  O  King  of  saints^ 
Who  would  not  fear  thee,  O  Lord,  and  glorify  thy  name, 
for  thou  only  art  holy  ?"  Rev.  xy.  3,  4.  "  And  behold 
one  came  and  said  unto  him,  (Christ)  good  Master,  what 
good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I  may  have  eternal  life  ?  And 
he  said  unto  him,  why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  there  is  none 
good  but  one,  that  is  God,'^  Matt.  xix.  16,  17.  "  This  is 
life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God, 
and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent,"  John  xvii.  3.  If, 
my  dear  Sir,  the  Father  only  is  holy—^ii  he  only  is  good — 
and  if  he  only  is  the  true  God,  does  it  not  seem  that  He 
'  olone^  is  the  Supreme  God  ?  In  the  passage  quoted  from 
the  Revelation,  Jesus  Christ  is  styled  the  Lamb.  And  the 
Lamb  seems  to  be  represented  as  uniting  with  the  holy 
inhabitants  of  heaven  in  ascription  of  praise  to  his  Father, 
the  o?ily  holy  One.  As  the  song  which  they  sing  is  the 
Lamb^s  song,  it  seems  that  it  is  sung  as  well  by  him,  as  by 
those  who  had  "gotten  the  victory  over  the  be^ist."  In  the 
other  passages  Christ  has  taught  us  that  his  Father  only  is 
good  and  true  in  distinction  from  himself.  Is  it  not  too 
much,  and  too  adventurous  then  to  say  that  the  Father 
alone  is  not  the  Supreme  God  ? 

Do  not  the  scriptures  teach  us,  that  the  Father  alone  is 
the  Most  High — the  Highest !  The  angel  in  his  message 
to  Mary  say's,  "  Behold  thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy  womb, 
and  bring  forth  a  son,  iuid  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus.  He 
shall  be  great,  and  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest.  The 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee ;    therefore 


also  that  holy  thing  that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God  ;"  "the  prophet  of  the  Highest,''''  Luke  i.  31, 
35,  76.  "  The  Most  High  dwelleth  not  in  temples  miide 
with  hands."  "  These  men  are  the  servants  of  the  Most 
High  God,''''  Acts  vii.  48,  and  xvi.  17.  This  title  ire- 
quentiy  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  scriptures  as  the 
appropriate  title  of  God  the  Father.  Thus  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  seem  to  have  understood  it.  Agree- 
ably they  apply  it  exchisively  to  the  Father,  even  the  God 
and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ.  Now,  as  the  Father  c/ow<?  is 
the  Highest — the  Most  High  God;  and  Jesus  Christ 
"  the  Son  of  the  Highest,'^  does  not  the  inference  seem 
natural,  if  not  necessary,  that  "  the  Father  alone'"  is  the 
Supreme  God  ? 

Do  not  the  scriptures  also  teach  us,  that  the  Father  is 
*'  above  all'^ — "/f/r  above  all  Gods" — that  "  among  the 
gods  there  is  ?ione  like  unto  him'''' — diat  in  an  appropriate 
sense  he  is  that  "  King  eternal,"  "  who  w,  who  was,  and 
who  is  to  come  ?"  But  do  not  these  descriptions  of  God 
the  Father  seem  strongly  to  indicate  that  He  alone  is  the 
Supreme  God  ?        ^ 

1  have  now,  my  dear  Sir,  presented  to  your  view  a  veiy 
considerable  number  and  variety  of  names  or  titles  of  God, 
the  Father,  which  I  believe  I  may  venture  to  say  are 
applied  to  him  alonb,  and  never  applied  to  Jesus  Christ. 
Whether  thej^  will  produce  conviction  in  your  mind,  that 
the  Father  alone  is  the  Supreme  God,  I  presume  not  to 
say.  Nor  will  I  say  that  they  demonstrate  the  supremacy 
of  the  Father.  Yet  may  I  not  be  permitted  to  ask,  whether 
they  do  not  amount  to  veri/  strong  evidence  in  proof  that 
this  is  indeed  the  case  ?  By  what  warrant,  or  by  what 
authority  then  has  Dr.  W.  said  that  "  the  plain  humble 
christian  finds  in  the  Bible  all  divine  attributes,  works  and 
honors  ascribed  to  the  Son,  his  adored  Redeemer  and 
Saviour,"  as  "are  ascribed  to  the  Father  ?"  Letter  3.  p.  31. 
I  cannot  but  think.  Sir,  that  had  the  Doctor  paid  all  that 
attention  to  the  subject,  which  its  vast  importance  demands, 
he  would  not  have  made  the  assertion  in  so  confident  and 
decisive  a  manner.  When  I  consider  his  distinguished 
talents,  and  the  great  influence  he  has  on  the  minds  and 
faith  of  a  large  portion  of  the  christian  community,  I  cannot 
but  feel  and  express  very  deep  regret,  mingled  with  sur- 
prise, at  his  making  an  assertion  in  respect  to  a  most 
solemn  and  interesting  subject,  with  so  little  apparent 
ground  for  its  support.  Most  devoutly  do  I  hope  that  he 
will  very  seriously  review  the  subject,  and  that  his  readers 
will  not  admit  his  assertion  as  true,  until  they  shall  find  it 
to  be  so,  liom  a  careful  examination  of  the  scriptures  for 
themselves. 


25 

From  Dr.  Worcester's  speculation  of  the  character  of 
the  Father,  let  us  now  pass  to  an  examination  of  his  idea^ 
respecting  the 

CHARACTER    OF    THE    SON. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Doctor  believes  that 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  "  a  Divine  Person" — "  realiy 
and  truly  an  intelligent  agent,  possessing  all  divine  attri- 
butes"— a  "  being  essentially  divine,"  and  "is  therefore 
God."  Here,  Sir,  you  will  permit  me  to  ask,  whether, 
admitting  these  statements,  as  correct,  Jesus  Christ  must 
not  alone  be  the  Supreme  God  ?  Is  not  the  Supreme  God 
2i  divine  person — ^n  intelligent  a !^ent^  being  or  God^  pos- 
sessing all  divine  attributes  ?  But  what  inore  than  these 
can  he  possess  ?  Were  I  to  suppose,  with  Dr.  W.  that 
Christ  is  "truly  God"— "  the  true  God"— "  God  him- 
self"— "  God  over  all,"  and  "  essentially  equal  to  the 
Father,"  must  I  not  admit,  either  that  Jesus  Christ  is  alone 
the  Supreme  God?  or  that  he  and  his  Father  are  two 
Supreme  Gods  ?  I  see  not  how  this  is  to  be  avoided. 
But  this  is  not  the  only  difficulty  which  the  Doctor's  opin- 
ion of  Christ  presents  to  my  view.  He  supposes,  Letter 
2.  p,  7,  "  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God  and  man  united  in  one 
person."  But  can  this  supposition  be  admitted  as  true, 
consistently  with  the  idea  that  the  Father  is  equal  to  the 
Son  ?  If  the  Father  possesses  all  divine  attributes,  and 
these  only^  how  can  he  be  equal  to  the  Son,  who  not  only 
possesses,  cdl  divine  ati?'d)utes,''^  but  also  all  the  attributes 
belonging  to  a  man^  and  a  man  too  unspeakably  superior 
to  any  other  man  ?  Whether  this  supposition  is  merely 
gratuitious,  I  shall  not  particularly  inquire  in  this  place. 
My  first  inquiry  will  be,  whether  he  has  supported  his 
position  that  Jesus  Christ  possesses  all  divine  attributesy 
and  is  therefore  God — the  true  God —  God  over  all. 

Dr.  Worcester  must  have  been  fully  awai*e  that  the  truth 
of  _  this  position  could  not  be  supported  but  by  scriptural 
evidence  that  Jesus  Christ  existed  from  eternity.  He 
therefore  produces  the  following  texts.  Letter  3,  p.  15, 
in  support  of  his  eternal  existence.  "  His  goings  forth 
have  been  from  of  old,  even  from  everlasting  " — "  la 
the  beginning  he  was  with  God,  and  was  God" — "  The 
same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  forever" — "  Alpha  and 
Omega,  the  Beginning  and  the  Ending,  the  First  and  the 
Last."_  These  are  the  principal,  if  not  the  only  passages 
on  which  he  seems  to  rely,  as  affording  conclusive  evidence 
of  Christ's  eternal  existence.  But  to  my  mind  they  do 
not  exhibit  such  evidence.  Were  it  true  that  these  pas- 
sages might  admit  of  a  construction  favourable  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  eternal  existence,  or  that  he  is  co-eternal 

D 


26 

with  the  Father ;  yet  must  it  not  be  acknowledged  thiit 
they  admit  also  of  a  construction  which  is  by  no  means 
favourable  to  that  doctrine  ?  And  may  not  the  latter  con- 
struction be  susceptible  of  the  best  support  ? 

The  first  of  the  passages  above  quoted  is  from  Micah, 
V.  2.  "  His  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  even  from 
ever  lasting. ''''  His  goings  forth.  May  not  this  expression 
signify  the  birth  of  Christ,  the  "  Ruler"  spoken  of  in  the 
former  part  of  the  verse,  who  was  "  to  come  forth'*''  from 
"  Bethlehem  Ephratah,"  an  event  which  had  been  pre- 
dicted "from  of  old,"  and  as  having  been  appointed  "  from 
everlasting  ?"  But  admitting  that  the  expression  is  to  be 
referred  to  a  period  long  before  the  event  of  his  birth,  yet 
does  it  indubitably  refer  to  an  eternal,  and  a  self  existence  ? 
Does  the  term  everlasting  necessarily  express  without  be- 
ginning'^ Instead  of  this,  it  generally  expresses  a  limited 
though  a  long  period.  Is  it  safe  or  justifiable,  then,  to 
infer  from  this  word,  as  used  in  the  passage  under  consid- 
eration, that  Jesus  Christ  existed  from  eternity,  or  that  he 
is  self-existent?  May  it  not  indeed  be  reasonably  suppos^- 
ed  that  the  expression  from  of  old  is  equivalent  to  everlast- 
ing ?  But  is  not  this  expression  very  far  from  proving 
Christ's  eternal,  or  self-existence  ?  I  w^ould  further  ask, 
whether  the  expression  goings  forth,  in  reference  to  Christ, 
does  not  strongly  favor  the  supposition  that  his  existence  is 
derivative,  and  therefore  dependent?  That  this  was  really  the 
fact,  the  fourth  verse  will  hardly  permit  us  to  doubt.  "  He 
shall  stand  and  feed  his  fiock  in  the  strength  of  Jehovah, 
in  the  majesty  of  the  name  ol  Jehovah  his  God.'''' 

''''In  the  beginnino^  was  the  fFord,  and  the  JVord  was 
with  God,  and  the  IFordivas  God.^^  ^  John  i.  1.  This  pas- 
sage suggests  to  my  mind  several  inquiries — Is  the  eter- 
nity of  Christ's  existence  to  be  inferred  from  the  circum- 
stance that  he  existed  in  the  "  beginning"  with  God  ?  Has 
eternity  a  beginning  ?  These  queries  are  respectfully  sub- 
mitted. But  is  the  eternity  of  Christ's  existence  to  be 
inferred  from  the  circumstance  that  he  existed  "  with 
God,"  or  that  he  "  was  God  ?"  If  Jesus  Christ  existed 
%vith  God,  although  at,  and  even  before  the  beginning  of 
the  creation,  does  it  follow,  that  he  is  either  that  God  with 
whom  he  existed,  or  eaiial  to  him  in  "  power  and  glory  '?" 
But  the  \V  ord,  or  Christ,  was  God.  Must  he  not  have 
existed  then  from  eternity  ?  This  conclusion  must  be 
admitted,  if  it  be  true  that  Christ  is  the  Supreme  God, 
But  if  it  be  true  that  Christ  is  God  Supreme,  or  "possess- 
ed of  all  divine  perfections,"  and  if  it  be  also  true  that  the 
God  with  whom  he  existed  is.  God  Supreme,  must  there 
not  be  txvo  Supreme  Gods  ?  \  do  not  see  how  this  conclu- 
sion can  be  satisfactorily  avoided.    Have  we  not,  then, 


27 

much  reason  to  believe  that,  as  "  there  are  gods  nfiany  botii 
in  heaven  and  in  earth,"  Jesus  Christ  must  be  God  in  a 
subordinate  or  inferior  sense  ;  and  therefore,  that  he  did 
not  exist  from  eternity  ? 

"  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday^  today,  and  forever  ^ 
Heb.  xiii.  8.  Whether  this  passage,  as  Dr.  Worcester 
seems  to  suppose,  proves  the  eternity^  of  Christ's  exist- 
ence, demands  rather  our  careful  consideration  than  bur 
immediate  belief.  May  it  not  indeed  be  a  question  wheth- 
er it  does  not  refer  rather  to  the  doctrines,  than  to  the  per- 
son of  Christ  ?  The  scope  of  the  passage  seems,  I  think, 
to  favor  this  suggestion.  Ver.  7.  "  Remember  them  that 
lia\'e  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken  unto  you  the 
Word  of  God  ;  wliose  faith  follow,  considering  the  end  of 
their  conversation."  Ver.  9.  "  Be  not  carried  about  with 
divers  and  strange  doctrines."  As  these  verses  stand  in 
immediate  connexion  with  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion, the  supposition  that  Jesus  Christ  may  intend  his 
doctrines  or  gospel,  is  not  to  be  considered  either  as  extrav- 
agant or  unnatural.  According  to  this  supposition,  the 
meaning  of  the  text  seems  to  be,  that  the  doctrines  of 
Christ,  or  of  the  gospel,  continue  invariably  the  same. 

But  on  the  supposition  that  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  intended  in  the  text,  must  not  the  expressions  "  yester- 
day, to-day  and  forever"  be  understood  in  a  figurative 
rather  than  a  literal  sense  ?  Is  it  a  literal  truth  that  Jesus 
Christ,  who  has  undergone  various  changes— been  placed 
in  various  situations — suffered  hunger  and  thirst,  poverty 
and  humiliation,  sorrow,  distress,  and  death  itself ; — was 
raised  from  the  dead  by  the  Father — ascended  into  heaven, 
and  ^vas  by  the  Father  highly  exalted — and  is  hereafter 
to  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Father — "  Is  it  a  literal 
truth,"  that  he  has  suffered  no  variation  or  shadow  of 
change  ?  or  that  he  will  always  be  the  same  and  in  all  res- 
pects that  he  now  is  ?  This,  1  think,  cannot  reasonably  be 
pretended.  Besides,  does  the  term  yesterday  necessarily 
imply  existence  from  eternity  ? 

"  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Beginning  and  the  Ending  ; 
the  First  and  the  Last.^'*  Rev.  xxii.  13.  Whether  this 
passage  is  to  be  considered  as  spoken  by,  or  as  referring  to 
Jesus  Christ,  may,  I  think,  be  doubted.  It  is  indeed  the 
settled  opinion  of  some  whose  researches  after  truth,  with 
respect  to  Jesus,  have  been  deep  and  indefatigable,  that 
the  title  "  Alpha  and  Omega,  kc."  "  always  denotes  the 
Father  in  the  book  of  Revelation."  But  admitting  that 
the  passage  under  consideration  was  spoken  by  Christ  and 
with  application  to  himself,  is  it  thence  to  be  inferred  that 
he  existed  from  eternity,  or  that  he  is  self-existent  ? — May 
we  not  consider  the  title,  Alplia  and  Omega,  with  applica- 


28 

•tion  to  Christ,  as  importing  that  he  js  the  Author  and  the 
Fimsiier  of  our  faith — or  that  he  is  the  Beginnbig  of 
the  creation  of  God,  and  the  Finisher  of  the  great  \\ork 
for  which  he  was  commissioned  bj^  the  Father '? — The 
First  and  the  Last.  May  we  not  consider  this  title  as 
signifying  that  Christ  is  "  the  first-born  of  every  creature" 
— that  he  is,  next  to  his  Father,  first  in  dignity  and  office, 
and  that  no  one  of  like  character  \\iil  ever  exist  after  htm, 
or  as  his  successor  ?  Although  I  would  not  be  confident 
that  this  is  the  just,  and  only  admissible  construction  of 
die  text,  yet  I  would  beg  leave  to  ask  whether  it  ^ill  ad- 
mit of  any  other  construction  in  reference  to  Jesus  Christ, 
so  rational  and  consistent  ?  Can  it  reasonably  be  pretended 
that  Jesus  Christ  existed  pi'ior  to  any  other  "  person," 
*' being,"  or  "agent?"  If  this  were  indeed  the  case,  then 
the  existence  of  the  Father  must,  it  should  seem,  have 
been  posterior  to  that  of  the  Son — for  prioi'ity  with  re- 
spect to  the  existence  of  txvo  pejsonsj  agents^  or  beings^  is 
too  palpable  an  incongruity  to  be  admitted,  as  possible. 

Let  us  now  examine  several  passages  on  which  Dr. 
Worcester  seems  to  place  his  principal  dependence,  as 
proof,  that  "  Jesus  Christ  possesses  all  divine  atti'ibutes, 
and  is  therefore  God." — "  this  is  the  true  god, 
and  eternal  hfe^     "our  great  god  and  Saviour  je- 

SUS  CHRIST."  "god  OVER  ALL,  BLESSED  FOREV- 
ER MO  RE."  "./'///  things  were  made  by  him,  ajid  roR 
HIM." — "  Upon  authority  such  as  this,  (observes  the 
Dr.)  we  believe  that  the  Son  is  essentially  divine, — essen- 
tially equal  to  the  Father." 

This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life.  1  John  v.  20. 
This  verse  entire,  reads  thus  ; — "  And  \\t  know  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding 
that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true,  and  Ave  are  in  him 
that  is  true,  e\  en  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
true  God  and  eternal  life."  In  relation  to  this  passage  I 
have  to  observe,  that  the  word  even  is  not  in  the  original. 
It  was  inserted  in  the  text  by  the  translators,  and  proba- 
bly without  any  sufficient  warrant  or  authority.  In  an 
English  version  of  the  Bible,  1549,  instead  of  even^xhi 
word  supplied  is  through. — "  We  are  in  him  that  is  true, 
through  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  And  that  this  is  the  just 
rendering  of  the  verse  is,  I  think,  highly  probable,  if  not 
certain.  The  true  import  of  the  passage  seems  to  be 
this — "  We  are  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God,  or  have  an  understanding  given  us  to  know  him  by 
the  instrumentality  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the 
way,  the  truth,  and  the  life  ;  for  he  is  the  teacher  or 
preacher  of  eternal  life.''''  That  the  expression.  This  is 
the  true  God,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  Father,  and  not  to  the 


29 

Son,  appears  highly  probable,  not  only  from  a  careful  at- 
tention to  the  passage,  but  especially  from  the  considera- 
tion that  Jesus  Clii'ist  has  in  the  most  explicit  manner  as- 
sured us, John  xvii.  3,  that  his  Father  is  the  "  only  true 
GOD,"  and  in  distinction  from  himself'.  "  This  is  life  eter- 
nal, that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  If  the  Father  is 
the  only  true  God^  is  it  not  difficult  to  conceive  that  any 
other  person,  or  agent,  or  being,  should  be  the  true  God  ? 
Is  there  any  other  true  God  besides  the  true  God?  But 
if  Jesus  Christ  be  this  very  God,  can  it  be  true,  also,  that 
the  Father  is  this  very  God,  or  that  he  is  another  God  of 
like  character  F  What,  Sir,  shall  we  say  to  these  things  ? 
How,  according  to  Dr.  W's  belief,  are  these  difficulties  to 
be  avoided  "? 

Our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Titus  ii.  13. 
This  passage  cannot,  I  think,  be  apposite  to  the  purpose 
for  which  Dr.  Worcester  has  quoted  it,  unless  the  title 
Great  God,  is  given  to  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  But 
is  this  indeed  the  case  ?  Although  I  \vould  not  perempto- 
rily decide  diat  the  title  is  gi^'en  exclusively  to  the  Father, 
yet  I  do  think  it  highly  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  it  is. 
*'  The  appearing  of  the  glory  of  the  Great  God,  and  of 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  is  the  literal  translation  of  the 
text. — Our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  will  appear  at  the  last 
day,  in  his  own  glorj^,  attended  with  the  appearance  of  his 
Father's  glory.  This  seems  to  be  the  plain  and  just 
meaning  of  the  text.  Must  not  the  Great  God  then  in- 
tend the  one  God  the  Father,  \\ho  is  every  where  distin- 
guished from  our  Saviour  Jesus  Clirist,  to  whom  this 
magnificent  title,  it  is  belie\ed,  is  never  given  by  any  in- 
spired \^Titer  ? 

God  over  all  blessed  for  evermore.  Rom.  ix.  5.  ^  This 
passage  is  not  so  coiTcctlj^  quoted  as  could  be  wished. 
The  whole  verse  reads  thus  ; — "  Whose  are  the  fathers, 
and  of  whom  as  conceming  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  forever.  Amen." — According  to 
the  translation  and  pointing  of  this  passage,  Christ  seems 
to  be  designated  as  God  over  all.  But  as  the  Greek 
words  are  of  ambiguous  construction,  it  is  far  from  being 
certain,  that  the  title  God  over  all  belongs,  or  is  to  be  ap- 
plied to  Christ.  The  words  may  signify  either — Ofivhom 
Christ  came  :  God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  forever. 
Amen. —  Or,  Of  whom  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all :  God 
be  blessed,  forever.  Amen.  That  either  of  these  render- 
ings is  fairly  admissible,  cannot,  I  am  persuaded,  be  rea- 
sonably questioned.  And  that  one  or  the  other  of  them  is 
to  be  admitted  as  probably  correct,  may  be  inferred  from 
the  consideration  that  the  word  Blessed  seems  to  be  an 


30 

appropriate  name  of  the  Father^  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  So?i  of  the  Blessed.  As  a  circumstantial  argument  in 
support  of  the  above  renderings,  it  may  be  observed,  that 
the  constant  doctrine  of  the  cLurcli,  in  its  earhest  periods, 
appears  to  have  been  that  Christ  is  not  the  God  over  all ; 
but  that  tliis  title  is  peculiar  to  the  Father. 

.411  things  were  created  by  him  and  for  him.  Col.  i.  16. 
The  import  of  this  passage  may  be  more  obvious  if  view- 
ed in  connexion  with  the  context.  I  will  therefore  exhib- 
it it  in  this  connexion.  Verses  15 — 17.  "  Who  (Christ) 
is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first  born  of  eveiy 
creature.  For  by  him  all  things  ^vcre  created,  that  are  in 
heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether 
they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers  : 
all  things  Mere  created  by  him,  and  for  him."  This 
passage,  it  is  thought  by  many,  affords  very  strong,  and 
even  conclusive  evidence  that  Jesus  Christ  "  is  essentially 
divine — essentially  equal  to  the  Father."  But  to  my 
mind,  it  does  not  afford  this  evidence ;  for  the  apostle 
seems  cai-efuUy  to  have  avoided  the  use  of  such  terms  or 
titles  \vith  application  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  are  peculiarly 
descriptive  of  God  the  Father.  He  speaks  of  Christ  as 
the  linage  of  the  invisible  God.  But  can  it  reasonably  be 
supposed  that  the  image  of  the  invisible  God  is  a  person, 
agent  or  being,  who  is  himself  the  invisible  God,  or  equal 
to  the  invisil^le  God  ?  But  if  the  supposition  is  to  be 
admitted,  must  it  not  also  be  admitted  in  relation  to  the 
first  progenitor  of  the  humxan  race,  who  was  made  in 
Ood''s  own  image  ?  The  apostle  speaks  also  of  Christ  as 
the  first  born  of  every  creature^  and  as  \!<i\t  first  born  from 
the  dead.  But  can  these  things  be  said,  with  truth,  of  the 
self  existent  and  unchangeable  God,  or  of  any  person  or 
being  equal  to  the  self  existent  and  unchangeable  God  ? 
Was  the  self  existent  God,  or  any  person  equal  to  him, 
ever  bom — ever  dead — ox  ever  raised  from  the  dead^  and 
by  another  being  too,  called  his  Father !  The  apostle 
adds,  for  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  all  fulness 
should  dwell.  But  if  ail  fulness  dwelt  in  Christ  by  the  will 
or  pleasure  oi  the  Father,  must  not  this  fulness  have  been 
si  derived  fulness  ?  Does  it  not  seem  to  iniply,  that,  for 
-all  the  attributes  or  excellencies  which  Christ  possessed, 
he  was  dependent  on  his  Father  ?  In  the  view  of  these 
things,  is  it  not  reasonable,  1  would  ask,  to  conclude,  al- 
though "  all  things  were  created  by  him  (Jesus  Christ) 
and  for  liim,"  that  he  was  the  subordinate  or  instrumental 
creator  of  them  ?  That  this  must  have  been  the  case, 
seems  highly  probable  not  only  from  the  above  suggestions, 
but  especially  from  the  consideration  that  all  things  are  of 
God,  and  only  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  God  made  the 


31 

worlds  bit  or  through  Jesus  Christ.  Nor  is  it  unimportant 
to  remark,  that  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  the 
original  word  rendered  by  ought,  as  I  believe,  to  have  been 
rendered  by  the  particle  in  or  through.  Had  this  been  the 
rendering,  the  passage  would  read  thus — "  All  things  were 
created  in  or  through  him,  and  for  him."  According  to 
this  rendering,  the  meaning  of  the  passage  evidently  is, 
that  the  Father  made  all  things  in  or  through  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ,yor  him,  or  to  be  in  subjection  to  him.  These 
remarks,  my  dear  Sir,  are  submitted  to  your  serious  con- 
sideration, as,  probably,  exhibiting  the  truth  with  respect 
to  Jesus  ;  and  I  may  add,  as  expressing  the  views  of  chris- 
tians, generally,  in  the  early  and  pure  ages  of  the  church. 
Its  most  distinguished  luminaries  did  not  scruple  to  say-; — 
"  All  things  were  made  through  the  Word,  not  by  him 
(as  the  original  cause)  but  by  one  superior  and  greater 
than  the  Word."  "  All  things  were  made  by  (or  through) 
the  Word,  as  the  ministering  cause,  that  so  he  might  refer 
us  to  the  supreme  power  and  efficiency  of  the  Father,  as 
the  Maker  of  all  things." 

Letter  2,  p.  38,  Dr.  Worcester  supposes  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  essentially  divine  from  the  consideration  that  "  all 
men  are  required  to  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour 
the  Father.'^  John  v.  23.  That  this  passage  should  be 
considered  as  requiring  us  to  honour  the  Son  with  the 
same  kind  and  degree  of  honour  as  is  due  to  the  Father, 
may  very  possibly  arise  from  the  want  of  suitable  attention 
to  the  passage  itself,  to  its  context,  and  to  the  general  scope 
and  connexion  of  the  scriptures.  And  that  this  is  really 
the  case,  there  is  much  reason  to  apprehend.  ^  The  Greek 
particle  rendered  as,  or  even  as,  never,  I  believe,  denotes 
strict  or  perfect  equality,  but  only  a  greater  or  less  degree 
of  resemblance.  A  few  examples  may  suffice  as  proof  of 
the  truth  of  this  remark.  ''  Be  ye  kind,  forgiving  one 
another,  even  as  God  for  Clirist's  sake  hath  forgiven  you." 
*'  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  masters,  as 
unto  Christ."  "  Be  ye  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which 
is  in  heaven  is  perfect."  Do  these  injunctions,  Sir,  require 
us  to  grant  forgiveness  to  our  fellow  men  in  the  same  seiise 
and  degree,  as  God  grants  forgiveness  ? — or  that  servants 
should  obey  their  masters,  in  the  same  se?ise  and  degree,  as 
they  should  obey  Christ? — Or  that  we  should  be  per- 
fect, i7i  the  same  sense  and  degree,  as  our  heavenly  Father  is 
perfect  ?  This  you  do  not  suppose.  Will  the  particle  as^ 
then,  justify  the  belief  that  we  are  to  give  the  same  kind 
and  degree  of  honour  to  the  Son  as  to  the  Father  ?  This. 
I  tJiink,  cannot  reasonably  be  admitted,  and  especially 
when  the  reason  which  is  assigned  for  honouring  the  Son 
is  duly  considered,  viz.  that  *'  the  Father  hath  committed 


32 

all  judgment  to  the  Son."  As  Christ  is  dependent  on  his 
Father  for  "  all  judgment,"  it  should  seem  that  he  is  not 
to  be  honoured  as  the  Supreme  and  Independent  Being, 
but  as  a  Judge  of  the  Father's  appointment,  and  as  his 
ambassador.  "  He,"  therefore,  "  that  honoureth  not  the 
Son,  honoureth  not  the  Father  that  sent  him."  Whoever 
docs  not  honour  the  Son  as  the  appointed  Judge,  whom 
the  "  Father  sent,"_  does  not  honour  the  Father.  But  is 
the  honour,  which  is  due  to  a  judge,  the  same,  in  kind  and 
degree,  with  that  \yhich  is  due  to  the  chief  magistrate  who 
vested  him  with  his  office  ?  Or  is  the  honour  which  is 
due  to  an  ambassador — one  who  is  sent,  the  same,  both 
in  kind  and  degree,  with  that  Avhich  is  due  to  the  sovereign 
by  whom  he  is  sent  ? 

Letter  3,  p.  17.  "  M:/  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I 
work.  Therefore  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him,  because — 
he  said  that  God  was  his  Father,  making  himself  equal 
with  God.''''  John  v.  17,  18.  The  Jews,  Dr.  Worcester 
observes,  "  understood  Christ  to  call  God  his  Father,  in  a 
sense  which  made  God  his  natural  Father,  and  himself  in 
nature  divine  and  equal  with  the  Father."  And  that  the 
Jews  understood  Christ  as  he  meant  to  be  understood,  is 
the  Doctor's  belief;  for  he  says,  that  Christ's  "being 
Son,  does  not  imply  inferiority  in  nature  to  the  Father. 
On  the  contrary,  it  imports  sameness  and  equality  of 
nature." 

The  expression,  natural  Father,  in  this  quotation,  if  not 
exceptionable,  I  consider  as  very  ambiguous.  But  in 
whatever  sense  it  is  to  be  understood,  it  seems  inconsistent 
with  the  supposition  that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  self  existent  and 
independent  person,  or  being  ;  or  that  he  is  equal  to  his 
Father.  Nor  is  it  very  likely  that  the  Je^vs  understood 
Christ  as  claiming  equaUty  with  the  Supreme  God.  But 
if  they  did,  it  is  very  far  from  being  certain  that  they  rightly 
apprehended  his  meaning.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
occasion  of  his  saying.  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and 
Ixvork,  was  the  accusation  of  the  Je\N's,  that  he  had  broken 
the  sabbath,  by  healing  an  impotent  man,  and  their  attempt 
on  that  account,  to  kill  him.  Is  not  this  then  the  most 
natural  meaning  of  his  words — "  As  Almighty  God  has 
always  performed  works  of  mercy  and  beneficence,  as  well 
on  the  sabbath,  as  on  other  days,  so  I,  his  Son,  perform  simi- 
lar works."  "Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  my  Father's 
business  ?" — that  "  I  must  work  the  works  of  him  that 
sent  me,  \\'hile  it  is  day  ?"  But  Mill  you  chi'jge  me  with 
violating  the  sabbath,  because  I  imitate  my  Father  in 
works  of  beneficence  ?  Or  will  you  accuse  me  of  making 
myself  "  equcil  with  God,"  because  I  call  him  my  Father  ? 
Or  because  I  tell  you  that  I  perform,  as  well  as  my  Father, 


$3 

works  of  mercy  ?^  "  Verilj-,  verily,  I  say  unto  yoii,  the 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  w  hat  he  seeth  the 
Father  do.  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing.  As  I  hear, 
I  judge,  and  my  judgment  is  just;  because  I  seek  not 
mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father  which  hath  sent 
me.  If  I  bear  v\  itness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  not  true. 
There  is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me,  and  I  know 
that  the  witness  which  he  w  itnesseth  of  me  is  true,''  verses 
19,  30 — 32.  If  Christ  meant  to  be  understood  by  the 
Jews  as  claiming  equdlity  with  his  Father,  and  as  perform- 
ing miracles  by  his  own  independent  agency,  is  it  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  he  would  have  spoken  of  himself,  as 
learning  of  his  Fath.er,  as  dependent  on  his  Fcther  for 
whatever  he  did,  and  as  seeking  not  his  own,  but  the  will 
of  his  Father  ?^  Had  the  Jew  s  been  impressed  widi  the 
belief  that  Christ  claimed  equality  with  God,  does  not  his 
solemn  asseveration  seem  to  have  been  designed  to  efface 
the  impression  ?  Yet  Dr.  W.  supposes  that  Nathanael, 
when  he  addressed  Clirist  as  "  the  Son  of  God,"  "evidently 
understood  this  appellation  to  import  true  divinity."  "  It 
cannot  reasonably  be  doubted,"  he  adds,  "diat  such  was  the 
understanding  of  Peter  and  Thomas,  and  the  other  disci- 
ples, when  they  acknowledged  Jesus  to  be  '  the  Christ, 
THE  Son  of  the  living  God,'  and  worshipped  him 
as  their  '  Zorc/,  and  their  God.'*'  But  this  representation 
I  must  consider  as  not  a  little  inaccurate,  as  Nathanael 
does  not  appear  to  have  considered  Christ  as  truly  divine, 
or  God.  If  Thomas  viewed  and  worshipped  Christ  as 
his  Lord  and  his  God,  yet  I  think  Dr.  ^Vorcester  can 
hardly  be  justified  in  saying  that  "  the  other  disciples'* 
worshipped  him  as  ""their  Lord  and  their  God  ;^^  as 
he  has  not  scriptural  authority  for  saying  so.  But  is 
it  certain  thit  Thomas  worshipped  Christ  as  God, 
equal  to  tlie  Father  ?  The  text  to  which  Dr.  W.  refers, 
only  states  that  Thomas  "  said  unto  him,  (Christ)  my 
Lord  and  my  God."  But  is  this  unquestion..bly  an  act 
of  worship — of  supreme  worsliip  paid  to  Christ  ?  Thomas 
does  not  say  to  Christ,  thou  art  my  Lord  and  my  God  ; 
but  exclaims  in  a  transport  of  admiration,  on  being  con- 
vinced that  he  was  indeed  risen  from  the  dead,  my  Lord  f 
and  my  God!  ^hich,  so  far  as  we  know,  might  have  been 
directed  to  the  Father,  who  had  raised  him  from  the  grave. 
That  this  was  really  the  fact,  was  the  opinion  of  a  distin- 
guished ancient  Father  of  the  fourth  century,  who  says 
that  Thomas  "  did  not  call  Christ,  Lord  and  God ;  but 
being  astonished  at  the  great  miracle  of  iiis  resurrection, 
and  the  full  evidence  of  it  that  he  had  afforded  hiin,  he 
praised  God  who  had  raised  him  from  the  dead."  J3ut 
whether  this  is  the  true  import  of  die  words  of  Thomas,  I 
E 


34 

pretend  not  positively  to  decide  ;  yet  I  see  not  but  it  may 
safely  be  decided,  that  if  Thomas  addressed  Jesus  Christ 
as  his  Supreme  Lord  and  God,  he  must  have  done  it  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  one  God,  the  Father  ;  for  there  is  but 
one  Supreme  God.  When  I  consider,  my  dear  Sir,  that 
Thomas  was  a  Jew  by  birth  and  education — that  he  be- 
lieved that  die  Lord  his  God,  the  God  of  Israel,  was  one 
Lord,  and  that  besides  him  there  was  none  else,  I  find  it 
difficult  to  conceive  that  he  should  have  considered  and 
worshipped  Jesus  Christ,  who  he  knew  had  been  crucified 
and  slain,  as  his  Supreme  Lord  and  God.  Nor  is  this 
difficulty  lessened,  when  I  further  consider  that  Christ  had 
never  required  either  Thomas  or  the  other  disciples  to 
w^orship  or  acknowledge  him  as  God,  but  his  Father  only. 
But  if  it  were  really  the  belief  of  Thomas  that  Christ  was 
God  Supreme,  must  not  this  belief  have  been  contradictory 
to  the  belief,  or  assurance  of  Christ  himself?  Did  not 
Christ  know  that  the  one  God,  even  the  Father,  was  his 
God,  as  well  as  the  God  of  Thomas  and  his  other  disci- 
ples? Did  he  not,  in  speaking  to  them  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, say,  "  I  ascend  to  my  Father  and  to  your  Father,  and 
to  my  God  and  your  God  ?"  Is  this  consistent  with  the 
supposition  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God — the  Supreme  God  f 
If  so,  the  consistency  seems  to  me  a  very  strange  one. 

Dr.  Worcester  supposes,  Letter  3,  p.  31,  "  that  the  same 
divine  honours  are  ascribed  in  the  Bible  to  the  Son  as 
to  the  Father." — If  this  be  really  the  case,  I  much  regret  it, 
that  he  has  not  more  satisfactorily  su{)ported  the  supposed 
fact  by  Bible  authority.  That  the  Bible  represents  Jesus 
Christ  as  an  object  of  honour  and  \v  orship,  I  readily  ac- 
knowledge as  truth  worthy  of  all  acceptation.  But  when  I 
consider  that  this  honour  or  ^vorship  is  to  be  paid  to  him  as 
"the  Lamb  that  was  slain,"  as  "  the  first  begotten  of  God, 
whom  he  brought  into  the  world,"  and  that  it  does  not  ul- 
timately terminate  on  him,  but  "is  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father,''''  I  cannot  be  satisfied  that  "  the  same  divine 
honours  are  ascribed  in  the  Bible  to  the  Son,  as  to  the 
Father."  And  do  you,  Sir,  find  no  difficult}'  in  believing 
that  a  person  or  being  who  was  slain — who  was  begotten^ 
and  brought  into  the  world,  is  to  be  worshipped  as  the  Su- 
preme, self-existent,  and  independent  God  ?  Can  we  easily 
believe  this  ?  Or  must  we  consider  those  as  "  advancing 
into  a  region  of  frost — of  darkness— yof  the  shadow  of 
death,"  who  do  not  \\  orship  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Supreme 
God  ?  This  Dr.  Worcester  supposes.  Nor  can  Trinita- 
rian christians,  if  I  understand  him,  "  meet  in  blessed  fel- 
lowsliip"  with  those  who  do  not  thus  \\orship  the  Son  of 
God  ;  for  they  "  adore  him  as  '  the^  true  God  and  eter- 
nal life^^  and  delight  in  the  ascription,   *  Unto  him  tliat 


55 

loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood, 
and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his 
Father,'  &c." — In  view  of  this  passage  I  would  ask  wheth- 
er the  christians,  whom  Dr.  W.  and  others  cannot  con- 
scientiously admit  to  their  fellowship,  do  not  professedly 
worship  one  true  God'}  But  does  he,  or  do  they  who  are 
in  sentiment  with  him,  worship  more  than  one  true  God, 
or  do  they  admit  the  existence  of  more  than  one  God  of 
this  character  ?  As  unto  us  there  is  but  "  one  God,  the 
Father,"  and  as  the  "  Father  is  the  only  true  God,^^  is  it 
not  difficult  to  conceive  that  Jesus  Christ  also  should  be 
the  true  God  ?  Besides,  is  it  not  equally  difficult  to  con- 
ceive that  "  the  true  God'^  should  have  "  washed  us  from 
our  sins  in  his  oxvn  blood,  and  made  us  kings  and  priests 
unto  God  and  his  Father  ?" 

Letter  2,  pp.  34,  35,  Dr.  W.  observes  "  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  revealed  as  our  Redeemer  and  Saviour" — "  that 
he  is  the  foundation  of  all  our  hopes  for  eternity,"  and 
"  that  we  have  redemption,  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins 
solely  on  account  of  the  merits  of  his  blood." — In  other 
places,  as  we  have  before  seen,  he  speaks  of  this  same 
Redeemer  and  Saviour,  as  an  agent,  being,  God,  essential- 
ly divhie,  and  as  possessing  all  divine  attributes.  He 
must  therefore  be  understood  as  representing  Christ,  as 
our  Redeemer  and  Saviour,  not  in  a  subordinate  or  inferior 
sense,  but  in  the  first,  or  principal  sense — and  that,  in  this 
sense,  we  are  dependent  on  him  for  redemption,  and  for  all 
our  hopes  for  eternity. — But  if  we  are  solely  dependent  on 
Christ  for  redemption  and  salvation,  he  must  be  our  Re- 
deemer and  Saviour,  not  only  in  the  supreme  or  highest 
sense,  but,  as  it  appears  to  me,  to  the  exclusion  of  every 
other  person,  being,  or  thing.  I  cannot  therefore  but 
strongly  apprehend  that  the  Dr.'s  belief  with  respect  to 
Christ  as  Redeemer  and  Saviour,  and  with  respect  to  oiir 
dependence  on,  and  obligation  to  him,  is  not  founded  in 
truth. 

In  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  God 
is  represented  as  the  only  Redeemer  of  his  people.  Nor  is 
Redeemer  ever  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament. 
Christ  is  indeed  once  said  to  be  redemption  ;  but  in  ini- 
mediate  connexion  with  this,  we  are  assured  that  he  is 
made  redemption  of  or  by  God.  God  the  Father  has  ap- 
pointed him  the  instrument  of  his  goodness  and  mercy,  in 
conveying  to  us  deliverance  from  sin  and  death.^  Christ 
has  thus  been  made  redemption,  "that  according  as  it  iswTit- 
ten,  he  that  glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord,y  Jehovah^ 
who  made  him  redemption.  Jesus  Christ  is  indeed  rep- 
resented as  a  Redeemer,  Deliverer,  &:c.  But  is  he  not  so 
represented  in  a  subordinate  or  inferior  sense  ?  "  When 


36 

the  fulness  of  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son- — 
made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the 
law."  Gill.  iv.  4,  5.  But  as  Christ  was  sent  of  God,  and 
7Jiade  under  the  law,  is  it  not  difficult  to  conceive  that  he  is 
Qur  Supreme  Redeemer  ?  If  Christ,  in  this  sense,  is  our 
Redeemer,  why  are  we  required  to  "  glorify  God,''''  be- 
cause "  we  are  bought  with  a  price  ?"  and  to  give  "  thanks 
unto  tlie  Father  who  hath  deli\'ered"  or  redeemed  "  us 
from  the  power  of  darkness  ?"  Although  ''  Christ  hath  re- 
deemed us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse 
for  us,"  by  "  having  been  slain,"  yet  does  not  the  cir- 
cumstance that  he  was  made  a  curse,  by  being  slain,  very 
strongly  indicate  that  he  is  only  our  instrumental  Redeem- 
er ?  Are  we  not  then  chiefly  to  glory  in,  and  to  glorify 
God  the  Father  V 

Jesus  Christ,  according  to  Dr.  Worcester,  is  revealed  in 
the  gospel  not  only  as  our  Redeemer,  but  as  our  Saviour^ 
and  in  the  highest  sense.  But  his  he  proved  this  great 
point  ?  To  my  satisfaction  he  hds  not.  That  the  title  of 
Saviour  is  applied  to  Christ  in  the  gospel  is  unquestionably 
true.  It  is  equally  true  also  that  the  same  title  is  applied 
to  other  persons.  But  is  it  not  applied  to  God  alone^  in  the 
highest  or  supreme  sense  ?  If  this  is  not  the  case,  what 
are  we  to  understand  by  the  unequivocal  declaration  of 
God  ?  "  I,  even  I,  am  the  Lord  ;  and  beside  me  there  is 
710  Saviour.^''  "  There  is  no  God  else  beside  me  ;  a  just 
God  and  a  Saviour  ;  there  is  none  beside  me,"  Isa.  xliii. 
11,  and  xlv.  21.  This  same  God  is  devoutly  acknowl- 
edged by  Mary,  Luke,  i.  47,  as  her  Saviour.  And  "  God 
our  Saviour^''  is  distinguished  from  "  Christ  our  hope,'''' 
1  Tim.  i.  1.  "The  living  God  is  styled  the  *So?y/o/^r  of 
all  men,  especially  of  those  that  believe."  He  is  "  the  only 
wise  God  our  Saviour,''''  Jude  25.  Several  other  pas- 
sages might,  were  it  necessary,  be  quoted,  in  which  the 
God  and  F.ither  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  styled  our 
Saviour.  Here  we  see  not  only  that  God,  the  living  God^ 
the  only  wise  God,  is  revealed  as  our  Saviour,  but  as  a  Sav- 
iour, beside  whom  there  i^  none  else,  and  in  distinction  from 
Jesus  Christ  our  hope.  Can  it  be  true  then,  as  Dr.  W. 
supposes,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  revealed  to  us  as  such  a 
Saviour  ?  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  self-existent  and 
Supreme  Saviour,  was  "  bor7i,  sent  into  the  world,  exalted 
and  raised  up,  &:c.?"  But  all  these  things  are  true  with  re- 
spect to  Jesus  Christ ;  and  for  all  these  things  he  was  depend- 
ent on  his  Father.  The  "  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  w  orld,"  and  "  exalted  him  to  be  a  Prince  and 
a  Saviour,"  Accordingly  the  great  muhitude  who  stand 
before  the  throne  of  God,  the  Father,  "ascribe  to  Him 
Gidvation."    And  this  tiiey  are  under  the  strongest  obiiga- 


37 

tioii  to  do,  as  He  "  appointed  them  to  obtain  salvation 
through,  or  by,  Jesus  Christ."  In  the  view  of  these  things 
can  it  reasonably  be  doubted  that  we  are  to  magnify  God 
our  Saviour  in  the  most  exalted  sense,  \\'ho  raised  and  sent 
Christ  to  be  a  Saviour  ?  and  especially  when  we  consider 
that  Christ  himself  prayed  to  God  as  his  Saviour^  who 
aloTie  was  able  to  save  him.  "  Father,  save  me  from  this 
hour."  In  "  the  days  of  his  flesh  he  offered  up  prayers  and 
supplications,  with  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  Him 
who  was  able  to  save  him  from  death."  Is  a  praying 
Saviour  to  be  considered  as  a  self- sufficient  and  inde- 
pendent Saviour  ?  Or  is  such  a  Saviour  "  the  founda- 
tion of  all  our  hopes  for  eternity,"  as  Dr.  W  .  pronoun- 
ces him  to  be  ?  If  so,  what  must  be  die  situation  of  those 
who  "  set  their  hope  in  Gor/" — w  hose  "  faith  and  hope  are 
in  Gof/" — of  them  that  "  hope  in  his  mercy  ?"  Or  with 
what  propriety  could  the  prcpliet  say  of  God,  "  he  is  my 
portion,  therefore  will  I  hope  in  him^  Did  he  consider 
Christ  as  the  foundation  of  all  his  hope  ?  Or  did  an  apos- 
tle consider  him  as  such  a  foundation  when  he  expressed 
his  *'  hope  towards  GodV  If  God  be  not  the  principal  or  pri- 
mary foundation  of  hope,  how  could  he  have  been  "the 
hope  of  Israel,  and  the  Saviour  thereof  in  time  of  lroul)le  ?" 
Or  with  what  propriety  could  they  have  been  exhorted  to 
"  hope  in  him,"  and  with  tiie  assurance  of  "  blessedness," 
if  they  did  so  ?  Can  these  things,  my  dear  Sir,  be  duly 
considered,  and  no  foundation  be  found  for  any  hope  but 
Jesus  Christ  ?  Jesus  Christ  is  indeed  a  foundation — a  sure 
foundation.  But  by  v>'hom  is  this  foundation  laid  ?  By 
"  the  Lord  God."  "  The  prophets  and  apostles"  also  are 
"  a  foundation"  of  which  "  Jesus  Christ  himself  is  the 
chief  corner  stone."  Yet  as  the  Lord  God  laid  the  foun- 
dation, must  he  not  be  the.  chief  obj  ect — the  principal  foun- 
dation of  our  hope  ?  "He  is  the  rock  ;  his  work,  is  perfect.'' 
But  who  is  a  foundation — "  \\\\o  is  a  rock"  in  the  high- 
est sense,  "  save  our  God  V  Let  us  not  then  "  lightly  es- 
teem THIS  Rock  of  our  salvation  ;" — this  everlasting  and 
immovable  "Foundation  of  all  our  hopes  for  eternity." 

Dr.  Worcester  not  only  says,  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
revealed  as  the  foundation  of  all  our  hopes  for  eternity, 
but  "  that  we  have  redemption,  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins 
solely  on  account  of  the  merits  of  his  blood."  Whether 
his  view  of  this  very  important  and  interesting  subject 
is  correct,  I  am  not  prepared  to  decide,  as  I  am  far  from 
being  satisfied  diat  I  understand  what  it  is.  He  represents 
Christ,  indeed,  as  our  surety,  our  substitute,  as  a  vicarious 
sufferer,  and  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  in  different  parts 
of  his  Letters,  and  produces  several  passages  from  the 
New  Testament  which  he  diinks  sufficient  to  justify  thai 


38 

representation.  Nor  will  I  say  that  he  has  not  sufficient 
ground  for  thinking  so.  Yet  it  seems  to  me  that  he  has 
tlirovvn  no  light  upon  the  subject.  His  expressions  are  too 
general  and  vague  to  convey  clear  and  distinct  ideas  ;  nor 
can  I  but  be  apprehensive  that  some  of  them  are  calculated 
to  lead  many  of  his  readers  to  improper,  if  not  dangerous 
conclusions,  particularly  the  sentence  under  consideration. 
If  "  Ave  have  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins  solely  on  account 
of  the  merits  of  Christ's  blood,"  nothing  else  but  that 
blood,  it  seems,  is  necessary  to  forgiveness ;  and  that 
forgiveness  is  bestowed  on  ?io  other  consideratioji.  Besides, 
if  Christ's  blood  completely  merits  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  I  do  not  see  that  the  forgiveness  of  the  sinner  can  be 
an  act  oS.  grace  or  favour  in  God.  Can  grace  or  favour, 
in  forgiving  sin,  be  compatible  with  the  consideration  that 
forgiveness  of  sin  has  been  merited?  Moreover,  if  Christ, 
by  his  blood,  has  merited  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  I  see  not 
that  any  argument  can  reasonably  be  urged  agiiinst  the 
doctrine  of  universal  salvation  ;  for  Christ  ''  died /or  «//." 
Nor  do  I  see  Avhy  all  have  not  a  claim  to  forgiA'eness  as  a 
matter  of  rights  if  forgiveness  has  been  merited  for  them. 
Pt  rhaps,  however,  the  Doctor's  theory  of  forgiveness,  does 
not  lead  to  these  conclusions,  although  it  seems  to  do  it. 
Instead  therefore  of  peremptorily  deciding  upon  the  sub- 
ject, I  will  invite  your  attention.  Sir,  to  several  passages  of 
scripture  relating  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  which  seem  to 
clash  with  Dr.  W.'s  belief.  "  For  thy  names'  sake,  O 
Lord,  pardon  my  iniquity,  for  it  is  great."  "  O  Lord, 
hear,  O  Lord,  forgive,  for  thine  own  sake."  John  the 
baptist  was  to  make  known  the  doctrine  di x^^^  forgiveyiess 
of  sms  "  through  the  tender  mercies  of  God."  And  John 
the  apostle  observes,  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  (God) 
is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us 
from  all  unrighteousness."  "  When  ye  stand  praying,'* 
said  Christ  to  his  disciples,  ""  forgive,  if  ye  have  aught 
agai)ist  any  ;  that  your  Father  also  M'hich  is  in  heaven,  may 
forgive  you  your  trespasses."  "  If  ye  forgive  men  their 
trespasses,  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  Mill  forgive  you." 
Is  not  the  import  of  these  passages  plain  and  obvious  ? 
Do  they  not  teach  us,  and  without  a  figure^  that  God  for- 
gives sins  for  his  own  name''s  sake — his  mercy'' s  sake — 
through  his  tender  tnercies — through  his  faithfulness  and 
justice  to  himself;  and  that  the  conditio?!  of  his  forgiving 
us,  is  otir  exercising  forgiveness  toxvards  others  who  ha\'e 
oftlnded  us?  That  we  have  any  meritorious  claim,  how- 
ever, to  the  divine  forgiveness,  founded  on  the  consideration 
that  we  forgive  ofl'enders,  is  very  far  from  my  belit f  The 
doctrine  of  personal  merit  in  this  great  affair  is  utterly  to  be 
disclaimed.    Nor  would  I  be  understood  to  insinuate  that 


29 

the  pardon  of  sin  is  not  bestowed  on  sinners,  who  repent, 
bt/,  or  through,  or  in  reference  to  "  the  blood  of  Christ." 
That  it  is  in  this  way  bestowed,  I  fully  believe.  But  that 
"  we  have  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins  solely  on  account  of 
the  merits  of  Christ's  blood,"  seems  to  me  irreconcilable 
"with  the  scripture  passages  cited  above.  But  as  I  am  very 
uncertain  whether  I  rightly  conceive  the  meaning  of  Dr. 
Worcester's  position,  I  would  not  be  understood  as  pro- 
nouncing against  it  an  uncjualified  condemnation.  I  must 
say,  however,  that  I  consider  his  manner  of  expressing  his 
belief  as  exceptionable,  and  calculated  to  impress  on  the 
minds  of  many,  the  idea  that  we  are  much  more  indebted 
to  Christ  the  Son  of  God  for  pardon  and  salvation,  than  to 
God  the  Father  ;  that  by  his  death  he  has  rendered  the 
Father  merciful  or  propitious,  and  that  he  is  the  chief 
object  of  our  love  and  confidence.  As  I  view  such  a  belief 
repugnant  to  the  whole  tenor  of  revelation,  I  cannot  but 
think  that  much  caution  ought  to  be  used  by  religious 
instructors  in  their  discourses  and  publications  to  prevent 
its  impression,  and  injurious  influence.  My  dear  Sir,  is  it 
to  be  admittecl  as  a  doctrine  of  revelation  that  Jesus  Christ 
has,  by  his  blood,  "recompensed  the  justice  of  God 
for  innumerable  sins  ?"  If  in  any  other  than  a  qualified 
and  highly  figurative  sense  he  has  done  this,  I  see  not  how 
God  can  pardon  those  sins  either  on  principles  of  justice, 
or  mercy.  If,  in  a  strict  and  proper  sense,  his  justice  has 
been  "  recompensed,"  must  not  the  innumerable  sins  for 
"which  the  recompense  has  been  made  be  completely  can- 
celled ?  How  then,  after  this,  do  they  admit  of  forgive- 
ness on  a7iy  consideration  ? 

It  was  my  original  design  to  make  no  remarks  on  Dr. 
Worcester's  statements  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement.  But  as  they  appear  to  have  been  made  with 
the  view,  partly  at  least,  to  support  the  essential  divinity 
of  Christ,  i  thought  it  not  irrelevant  to  my  principal  object 
to  make  the  above  strictures  upon  them.  Should  they  be 
instrumental  to  a  more  thorough  investigation,  and  to  a 
more  clear  and  satisfactory  developcment  of  this  great  and 
difficult  subject,  I  shall  greatly  rejoice. 

I  shall  now  examine  several  things  advanced  by  Dr. 
Worcester,  which,  akhough  they  relate  principally  to  the 
character  of  Christ,  may  be  considered,  not  improperly, . 
as 

MISCELLANEOUS    ARTICLES. 

The  first  relates  to  the  union  of  Christ  the  Son,  with 
God  the  Father  ;  which  union,  if  I  understand  Dr.  W. 
furnishes  evidence,  in  his  opinion,  of  the  essential  divinity 
of  the  Son,  and  of  his  equality  to  the  Father.    A  few  re- 


40 

marks  have  already  been  made  upon  this  subject :    But 
its  importance  demands  a  more  particular  consideration. 

*'  Jesus,"  the  Dr.  observes,  Let.  3,  pp.  20,  21,  22,  "in  his 
memorable  intercessorj-  prayer  with  his  disciples,  says," 
*  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  u  Inch 
shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word,  that  they  all  may 
be  one ;  as  thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee, 
that  tliei/  also  may  be  one  ifi  z/.9,'  John  xvii.  20,  21.  And 
christians  are  abundantly  exhorted  in  the  scriptures  to  seek 
•and  preserve  the  most  perfect  unity.''  But  "  in  whiit," 
asks  the  Doctor,  "  does  this  unity  consist  ?"  "  Un- 
doubtedly," he  answers,  "  in  being,  as  St.  Paul  expresses 
it,  '  perfecdy  united  together  in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the 
sunie judgment' — *  being  knit  together  in  love.'  When 
christians  are  thus  in  mind,  in  judgment,  and  in  love, 
perfectly  joined  and  knit  together,  they  are  in  the  most 
important  and  interesting  sense,  one,  &c."  "  Were  they 
perfectly  holy  ;  had  they  also  exactly  the  same  thoughts  on 
every  subject,  the  same  vicAvs  of  every  object,  the  same 
affections,  an.d  regards  towards  every  being  and  tiling  ;  and 
Jiad  they  moreover  a  perfect  knowledge  of  each  otlurs' 
minds  and  hearts,  their  union  \\ould  be  most  complete." 
*'  A  union  of  this  Avwf/does  exist  in  a  greater  or  less  degree 
among  believers,  and  will  increase,  until  it  attain  its  highest 
perfection  in  the  heavenly  world.  This  is  the  oneness  into 
which  Jesus  prayed  that  his  people  might  be  brought,  and 
which  he  resembled  to  tliat  \\hich  exists  between  him  and 
his  Father,"  akhough  it  "  fdis  infinitely  short  of  it." 
W''hether  the  Doctor  is  correct  in  saying  that  the  luiion 
existing  between  believers,  fills  bifimtely  short  of  the 
union  which  exists  between  Christ  and  his  Father,  may  be 
reasonably  questioned.  But  ho\vever  this  mav  be,  it  is 
admitted  that  there  is  a  resemblance  between  them  ; — that 
they  are  alike  in  hind.  The  Uiuon  in  both  cases  is  of  a 
moral  nature^  a  iinmi  in  love^  &c.  But  because  Chi-ist  is 
thus  united  to  his  Father,  is  it  necessarily  to  be  inferred 
that  he  is  "  essentially  divine,"  that  he  is  "  possessed  of  all 
divine  attributes,"  and  that  "  he  is  equal  to  his  Father '?" 
*'  If  believers  may  be  one,  both  in  Christ  and  in  the 
Father," — iithey  miiy  "  be  one,  as,'*''  and  "  even  as  Christ 
and  the  Father  are  o;?/?,"  must  it  not  be  difficult  to  conceive, 
that  the  oneness  betueen  Clirist  and  his  Father  is  anu  other 
xh'Mio^  ^.  moral  jiat lire  ?  But  does  such  a  union  impiv, 
either  that  Christ  is  equ^l  to  his  Father,  or  that  he  and  his 
Father  are  one  being  or  God  ?  I  do  not  see  tliyt  it  implies 
either  of  these  suppositions.  0:i  examining  the  chdpler 
from  which  Dr.  W.  quoted  the  intercessory  pruytr  of 
Jesus,  I  find  him  praying  to  his  Father,  to  glorify  him — 
acknowledging  his  dependence  on  his  Father  ibr  the  power 


41 

which  he  possessed — speaking  of  his  Father  as  the  only  true 
Gocl,  and  of  him  sell"  as  sent  from  God,  &c.  How,  my 
dear  Sir,  are  these  things  to  be  reconciled  with  the  suppo- 
sition that  Jesus  Christ  is  "  one  God  with  the  Father,"  or 
"  that  all  the  iniinite  knowledge,  and  po\Acr,  and  wisdom, 
and  goodness  of  the  Father,  are  in  the  Sour"'  But  Ictus 
see  how  Dr.  Worcester  maintains  the  supposition. 

It  is  an  assertion  oi"  Christ,  he  observes,  "  /  and  mu 
Father  are  one.'''' — But  how  are  they  one  '? — one  God^  If 
so,  the  fact  completely  destroys  the  doctrine  of  a  triune 
God.  For  if  Christ  and  his  Father  are  so  united  as  to 
constitute  one  God,  a  third  person  cannot  be  associated 
with  the  Godhead.  That  one  which  is  constituted  of  twOj 
cannot  at  the  same  time  be  constituted  of  three.  But  if 
this  oneness  is  of  a  moral  kind,  implying  union  in  love, 
design  and  pursuit,  \\  hat  e\  idence  docs  it  furnish  that 
Christ  and  his  Father  are  one  God  ?  Are  not  christians 
united  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Father,  even  as  the  Son  is 
united  to  the  Father  ?  "  Believe  me^  that  I  am  'm  the 
Father^  and  the  Father  in  ;???."  But  are  not  christians 
both  ?;2  the  Son,  and  in  the  Father  ?  How  then  does  this 
circumstance  prove  that  Christ  is  equal  to,  or  one  God 
with  the  Fathtr  ? 

*'  ./\b  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the  only  begotten 
Son^  which  is  in  .the  bosom  of  the  Father^  he  hath  declared 
him.''''  But  have  not  many  men  seen  C  hrist  ?  How  then 
can  Christ  be  God,  since  God  is  invisible  ?  As  Christ 
was  begotten^  how  could  he  have  been  self-existent  ?  As 
he  was  cherished  in  the  bosom  of  his  Father,  must  he  not 
have  been  dependent  on  his  Father  ?  And  as  he  declared 
his  Father,  must  he  not  have  been  his  Father's  messenger  ? 

''''  Jls  the  Father  knoweth  me^  even  so  know  I  the  Father. ^^ 
The  iriference  of  Dr.  \V.  is,  that  "  the  Son  has  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  his  Father's  infinite  mind  and  will."  But  is 
this  inference  to  be  admitted  as  indubitably  ti'ue  ?  If  so, 
will  not  the  spirits  of  just  men  in  the  future  world  have  a 
perfect  knov.  ledge  of  the  infinite  mind  and  \\ill  of  God  ? 
for  in  that  aa  orld  "  shall  they  know"  God,  "  even  as^  they 
are  known"  of  God.  But  as  no  man  will  ever  even  in  the 
future  w  orld  liave  a  perfect  knowledge  ol  the  infinite  mind 
and  Mill  of  God,  is  it  ]iot  presumptuous  to  inter  from  the 
above  text  that  the  knowledge  of  Christ  is  co-extensive 
with  the  knowledge  of  his  Father,  and  especially  as  he  has 
expressly  declared  that  he  does  not  know  all  that  his  Father 
knows  ? 

"  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself  but  what  (but  asy 

Campbell's  translation)  J\e  seeth  the  Fathei'  do  ;  for  what 

Phings  soever  he  doeth^  these  also  doeth  the  Son  bkewisc.^^ 

Dr.  Worcester  supposes  the  meaning  of  this  passage  to  be, 

F 


42 

*'  that  all  that  is  clone  by  the  Father  is  in  the  same  manner, 
and  at  the  same  time,  done  by  the  Son."  But  if  the  Dr's. 
supposition  be  true,  what  are  we  to  understand  by  the 
declaration  that  "  all  things  are  of  God,"  and  only  "  by 
Jesus  Christ  ?"  Does  tliis  imply  that  Christ  does  all 
things  in  the  same  manner  as  they  are  done  by  the  Father  ? 
The  "  Father  hath  pat  the  times  or  the  seasons  in  his  oxvn 
power y  But  is  this  cx)nsistent  with  the  supposition  that 
Christ  hath  put  these  same  times  or  seasons,  in  the  power 
6f  his  Father^  or  in  his  own  power  ?  The  Father  begat 
the  Son,  sent  him  into  the  world,  gave  him  a  command- 
ment what  he  should  do,  and  what  he  should  speak-— 
committed  all  judgment  to  him — -ordained  him  to  be  the 
Judge  of  the  world — set  him  on  his  holy  hill  of  Zion — 
gave  him  a  kingdom — anointed  him  with  the  oil  of  glad- 
ness— -delivered  him  into  the  hands  of  wicked  men  to  be 
crucified— forsook  him  on  the  cross— raised  him  from  the 
dead — exalted  him  to  his  own  right  hand,  and  gave  him  a 
more  excellent  name  or  dignity  than  angels.  These  things, 
my  dear  Sir,  God  tlie  Father  did  in  relation  to  his  Son. 
But  did  the  Son  do  all  these  things,  and  in  the  same  manner 
and  at  the  satne  time  his  Father  did  them  !  How  could 
the  Son  beget  himself^  send  himself  &c.  These  things 
are  too  mysterious  for  my  comprehension.  Nor  can  I 
conceive  that  two  persons  or  agents  ever  did,  or  that  it  is 
possible  they  should  do  any  one  thing  at  the  same  time  and 
in  the  same  manner,  I  must  think,  therefore,  that  Dr.  W. 
is  not  a  little  incorrect  in  saying,  "  that  all  that  is  done  by 
the  Father  is  in  the  same  manner,  and  at  the  same  time, 
done  by  the  Son."  If  this  were  true,  with  what  propriety 
could  the  Son  have  expressly  declared  that  he  "  could  do 
nothing  of  himself'*''  and  in  reply  to  the  accusation  of  the 
Jews,  when  they  said  that  he  made  "  himself  equal  with 
God  ?"  The  truth,  as  stated  by  the  evangelist,  is,  that  the 
works  which  Christ  did,  "  he  did  in  his  Father'' s  name''"' — 
and  that  "  x}i\^  Father  who  dwelt  in  him  did  the  works^ 
Agreeably  Christ  prayed  to  the  Father  when  he  wrought 
miracles,  and  acknowledged  his  dependence  on  the  Father. 
'*/«  him  (Christ)  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily  y  "  He  is  the  brightness  of  the  Fathefs  glory  ^  and 
the  express  image  of  his  person^  "Therefore  he  says, 
*  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  also.''  Such 
is  the  unity  of  the  Fajher  and  the  Son," — a  unity  which 
Dr.  W.  supposes  implies,  "that  the  will  and  power  of 
Christ,  are  the  same  with  the  will  and  power  of  the  Father." 
And  of  course  that  the  Son  is  equal  to,  and  one  with  the 
Father.  But  do  the  above  quoted  passages  prove  this 
doctrine  ?  Because  the  Godhead,  or  God,  dwells  in 
Christ,  does  it  follow  that  Clw'ist  is  himself  God?    If  so, 


43 

must  not  christains  be  the  subjects  of  real  divinity  ?  for 
*'  God  dwells  in  theni !"  Should  it  be  said  that  it  is  not 
to  be  inferred  that  Christ  is  God,  simply  because  God 
dwelleth  in  him,  but  because  all  the  fulness  o{  the  Godhead 
dwelleth  in  him,  may  it  not  pertinently  be  replied,  that 
christians  are  "  filled,"  or  are  capable  of  being  "  filled  with 
^'^  the  fulness  of  God  /"'  Should  stress  be  laid  on  the  term 
lead,  as  implying  a  triune  God,  may  it  not  with  pro- 
cy  be  asked  whether  there  is  not  a  great  incongruity  in 
supposition  that  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Spirit,  all 
ell  in  the  Son  ?  But  if  thtre  be  no  incongruity  in  this» 
;  I  would  ask  whether,  if  the  fulness  of  the  "Sacred 
hree"  dwell  in  the  Son,  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  can  be 
qual  to  the  Son  ?  The  fact  however  is,  that  the  fulness 
which  dwells  in  Christ  is  the  fulness  of  the  Father.  But 
what  is  this  fulness  aside  from  those  "  treasures  of  wisdom 
and  knowledge"  imparted  to  Christ  by  the  Father  for  the 
benefit  of  the  church,  or  to  c^ualify  him  to  fulfil  his  great 
commission?  Is  it  not  by  this  fulness  that  ^^he  is  the  bright- 
ness  of  the  Father"* s  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his 
person  ?"  Whatever  may  be  intended  by  the  expres- 
sion, the  brightness  of  the  Fathefs  glory,  it  cannot  imply, 
it  should  seem,  that  the  Father's  glory  is  the  glory  of 
Christ ;  but  rather  that  Christ  receives  his  brightness  from 
his  Father's  glory.  Nor  can  the  phrase,  the  express  image 
of  his  person,  imply,  I  should  think,  that  Christ  is  the  sub- 
stance or  essence  of  the  Father  ;  for  image  seems  evidently 
to  denote  something  different  from  the  person,  substance, 
or  essence  of  which  it  is  an  image.  It  is  to  me.  Sir,  very 
difficult  to  conceive  that  Christ  can  be  both  the  substance 
or  essence  of  his  Father,  and  the  image  of  his  substance  or 
essence.  Must  not  the  image  of  any  person  or  thing, 
however  "  express,"  be  entirely  distinct  from  that  person 
or  thing  ?  Is  it  then  to  be  inferred  from  the  consideration 
that  Christ  is  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glo^,  &.c.  that 
he  is  equal  to  his  Father,  or  so  united  to  the  Father  as  to 
be  one  God  with  him  ?  Or  is  this  inference  to  be  made 
from  the  consideration  that  "  he  that  hath  seen  the  Son, 
hath  seen  the  Father  also  ?"  If  this  declaration  of  Christ 
be  strictly  and  literally  true,  I  see  not  but  the  Father  must 
be  literally  visible.  But  as  "  no  man  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time,"  as  "  he  is  the  invisible  God,"  the  passage  under 
review  is  not  to  be  taken  in  a  strict  and  literal  sense.  Its 
import  seems  to  be,  tiiat  Christ  was  his  Father's  represen- 
tative— the  revealer  of  his  will — that  the  wisdom  and  power 
of  the  Father  resided  in  him,  and  were  by  him  displaj'ed  to 
the  view  of  men,  so  that  they  who  saw  Christ,  and  the 
works  which  he  wrought  by  the  power  of  the  Father,  might 
be  said,  in  a  figurative  or  qualified  sense,  to  have  seen  the 
Father. 


44 

Letter  2,  p.  7,  Dr.  Worcester  views  Christ  as  possessed 
of  two  natures,  divine  and  human.  "  Do  you  not  know, 
(he  asks,)  that  Trinitarians  hold  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God 
and  man  united  in  one  person — that  this  complex  person 
suffered  and  died,  and  that  his  death  had  all  the  importance, 
all  the  merit,  all  the  elficacy,  a\  hich  could  be  derived  to  it 
from  the  infinite  dignity  of"  such  a  person  ?"  Pages  32,  2>3^ 
he  observes,  "  The  scriptures  teach  us  that  the  same 
Word,  who  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and  was 
God,  was  MADE  or  a  woman,  niade  under  the  law  ; — 
that  though  being  in  the  form  of  God,  he  thought  it 
not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  ;  yet  he  made  hunself 
of  no  reputation  ^  and  took  upon  hjm  the  form  of  a 

SERVANT,     AND     WAS    MADE     IN      THE     LIKENESS     OF 

MEN  ;  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  /?e  I  tumbled 
himself^  atid  bceame  obedient  unto  deaths  even  the  death  of 
the  cross.''''  Phil.  ii.  6,  8.  "  We  therefore  believe,  that  in 
the  person  of  the  Son,  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
in  our  own  nature  ;  that,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ, 
God  and  man  were  united."  *■'  Viewing  him,  then,  in  his 
two  natures,  di\  ine  and  human,  we  see  a  perfect  consistency 
in  his  being  represented,  as  he  is  in  the  scriptures,  both  as 
God  and  man  ;  as  essentially  equal  to  the  Father,  and  yet 
in  other  respects  unequal."  '■  This  doctrine,  (adds  the 
Doctor,)  we  feel  ourselves  bound  to  believe  as  a  most 
interesting  and  important  truth."  This  union  of  two 
infinitely  unequal  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ,  he 
acknowledges  to  be  an  incomprehensible  mysterj\  But 
being  clearly  rexealed,  as  he  supposes,  in  the  word  of  God, 
he  thinks  it  must  be  received  as  a  most  important  truth. 
Nor  should  I  qtiestion,  my  dear  Sir,  <  ur  obligation  thus  to 
receive  it,  however  incoinprehensible  the  doctrine,  were  I 
satisfactorily  convinced  that  it  is  a  doctrine  of  revelation. 
But  is  this  to  be  admitted  ?  Do  you  find  no  difficulty.  Sir, 
in  believing  that  a  pers«:)n  or  being  essentially  divine^  and 
equal  to  God  the  Father,  was  7)mde  of  a  woman — made 
under  the  law — thi.t  he  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men^ 
and  that  he  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of 
the  cross  ?  But  all  these  things  Dr.  Worcester  applies  to 
the  "  J  Ford,'*''  whom  he  considers  as  God  in  the  supreme 
or  highest  sense.  Whether  he  intends  to  be  understood 
according  to  the  most  obvious  meaning  of  his  expressions, 
T  know  not.  If  he  does,  I  dare  not  assent  to  his  belief, 
and  especially  A^  hen  I  consider  that  die  same  person  or 
being,  "  w  ho  thought  it  not  robberj^  to  be  equal  a\  ith 
God,"  was,  in  consequence  of  his  humiliation,  obedience 
and  death,  rewarded  by  his  Father,  in  that  he  *'  highly 
exalted  him,  and  gave  a  name  which  is  above  every  name." 
|b  it  not  very  difficult  to  conceive  that  a  person  or  being, 


45 

who  is  God  in  the  highest  .se?ise,  should  be  thus  rervarded 
for  his  obedience  and  sufferings  unto  death,  by  another 
person  or  being,  whom  he  obeyed,  and  by  whose  appoint- 
ment he  suffered  and  died  ?  Is  it  not  much  more  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  this  person  or  being  is  God,  in  an 
inferior  or  subordinate  sense  ?  My  mind  cannot  but 
revolt  at  the  idea,  "  that  the  ever  blessed  God  suffered  and 
died  on  tlie  cross."  Nor  does  this  idea  seem  exactly  Xo 
comport  with  Dr.  Worcester's  view  of  the  subject.  He 
says,  Letter  3,  p.  37,  "  This  phrase  is  not  mine."  "We 
hold  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God  and  man,  united  in  one  person  ; 
and  that  this  one  complex  person  suffered  and  died." 
*'  We  do  not  saj-  that  the  ever  blessed  God,  separately 
from  man,  suffered  and  died,  but  we  do  say  that  Jesus 
Christ,  as  God  and  7nan  in  one  person,  did  suffer  and  die." 
But  if  the  "  ever  blessed  God,"  as  united  with  man, 
"  suffered  and  died,"  then  a  person  somewhat  greater  than 
the  ever  blessed  God,  must  have  suffered  and  died  ;  as  the 
union  of  the  ever  blessed  God  to  a  man,  by  which  he 
became  one  person  with  the  man,  must,  so  far  as  I  can  see, 
have  constituted  that  person  a  greater  being,  than  the 
person  of  God  separate  from  the  supposed  union.  This 
conclusion,  however,  may  be  considered  as  inadmissible, 
although  I  cannot  see  that  it  is  so.  I  will  therefore  only  say, 
that  if  the  ever  blessed  God,  as  united  \\\\h.  man,  suffered 
and  died,  his  sufferings  and  death  must,  to  say  the  least, 
have  been  as  reed  and  as  great  as  if  he  had  not  been  united 
to  the  man.  Should  it  be  said,  that  notwithstandiiig 
this  "  complex  person  suffered  and  died,"  yet  essential 
divinity  was  not  subject  to  suffering,  nor  to  the  pains  of 
death,  may  it  not  be  pertinently  asked,  how  then  could 
*'  God  and  man  in  one  person  suffer  and  die  .^"  If  two 
natures,  "divine  and  human,"  constitute  one,  and  but  one 
person  ;  and  if  that  self  same  pe7'so?i  suffered  and  died, 
does  it  not  necessarily  follow,  that  the  divinity  as  well  as 
the  humanity  was  subject  to  suffering,  and  the  pangs  of 
death  ?  This  consequence  does  not,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
admit  of  evasion.  Should  the  consequence,  however,  be 
denied,  must  it  not  of  course  be  admitted  that  the  humanity 
only  of  this  complex  person  suffered  and  died  ?  If  both 
the  natures  did  not  suffer  and  die,  then  surely  but  one  of 
them  suffered  and  died  ; — and  if  tlie  divine  nature  did  not 
suffer  and  die ;  then  the  human  jiature  only  suffered  and 
died.  But  if  the  human  nature  only  of  the  supposed  com- 
plex person  of  Christ  suffered  and  died,  what  is  "c//the  im- 
portance, all  the  merit,  allxht  efficacy,"  thence  resulting  ? 
The  sufferings  and  death  of  a  man  could  not,  I  should 
think,  make  an  infinite  atonement,  or  "  recompense  the 
justice  of  God  for  innumerable  sins."    But  if  on  the  otlier 


46 

hand  a  "  person,  or  being,  or  God,  possessed  of  all  divine 
attributes,"  suffered  and  died  upon  the  cross,  with  what 
propriety  could  he  have  exclaimed  in  his  agony,  "  My 
God!  my  God!  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  Could 
one  person,  being,  or  God,  possessed  of  all  divine  attri- 
butes, be  so  forsaken  of  another  person,  being  or  God  of 
the  same  description,  as  to  feel  the  need  of  divine  support 
and  consolation ! 

Several  other  difficulties  arising  from  the  supposed  com- 
plex character  of  Christ  present  themselves  to  my  view , 
and  weary  me  with  painful  conjectures. — If  "  Jesus  Christ 
be  God  and  man,  united  in  one  person,"  when  did  this 
union  commence?  at  the  birth  of  Jesus  ?  If  so,  do  you 
find  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  this  holy  child,  when 
lying  in  a  manger  and  nourished  at  his  mother's  breast, 
and  when  subject  to  her  authority,  and  to  the  authority  of 
Jos-ph,  his  reputed  father,  was  God  in  the  highest  sense  of 
the  word?  Is  it  not  irreverent  thus  to  view  and  speak  of 
the  self-existent  and  eternal  God?  Is  it  not  highly 
improper  and  incongruous  to  suppose  that  a  person 
or  being  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,  had  a 
mother  and  ancestors  traceable  to  remote  antiqui- 
ty ?  that  he  had  brothers  and  sisters  ?  that  he  grew 
in  stature  and  in  knowledge,  and  that  he  wrought  for  a 
series  of  years  at  a  servile  occupation  ?— -that  he  M'as  sub » 
;iect  to  all  the  sinless  infirmities  of  human  nature  ? — that 
he  had  flesh  and  blood,  as  we  have  ?  that  he  was  suscep- 
tible of,  and  actually  experienced  the  sensations  of  hunger, 
and  thirst,  and  bodily  pain  ?  Is  it  not  equally  difficult  to 
conceive  that  he  should  realize  grief,  and  fear,  and  distress, 
and  son-ow  of  soul  even  unto  death  !  How  caji  these  things 
be  ?  Yet  you  will  not  deny  or  question  that  they  axe  all 
true  with  respect  to  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  if 
you  will  not  allow  them  to  be  true  of  a  person  possessed  of 
all  divine  attributes,  must  you  not  of  course  deny  that 
these  are  the  attributes  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Perhaps  however 
you  will  say  that  whatever  of  infirmity  and  of  suifering 
is  ascribed  to  Christ,  is  to  be  understood  of  his  humanity 
only.  But  if  this  be  admitted,  how  is  the  supposed  com- 
plex  character  of  Christ  to  be  maintained  ?  for  this  com- 
plex character,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  constitutes  but  one 
person.  Is  nothing  then  of  infirmity  and  suflfering  to  be 
applied  to  Christ's  person  ?  If  not,  how  can  they  be  ap- 
plied to  Christ  himself  ?  Is  not  the  term  Christ  equivalent 
to  the  Xtrm  person  of  Christ.^  Besides,  if  nothing  of  in- 
firmity and  suffering  were  incident  to  the  person — Xhtwhole 
person  of  Christ,  how  shall  we  find  an  unspeakable 
value-^a;z  infinite  merit  in  his  death  ? 


47 

I  have  further  to  ask—- What  is  intended  by  that  union 
of  divine  and  human  nature  which  are  supposed  to  con- 
stitute one  person^  <5ne  Christ  ?  Does  this  supposed  union 
consist  in  a  coalescence  and  intermixture  of  *'  God  and 
man,"  so  as  to  constitute  a  person  or  being  possessed  of 
one  soul — one  consciousness — one  intelligence — one  will — 
one  power  of  action,  £s?c.  ?  If  this  is  to  be  admitted,  what 
is  the  ground  of  distinction  between  the  supposed  divine 
and  human  natures,  or  between  the  divine  and  human 
soul  of  Christ  ?  No  such  ground  seems  to  exist.  Nor,  so 
far  as  I  can  see,  is  there  any  sufficient  reason  for  ascribing 
some  things  to  the  divine  and  other  things  to  the  human 
nature  of  Christ.  When  he  prayed,  must  it  not  have  been 
the  act  o^one  soul  ?  Must  not  his  joy  and  his  sorrow  have 
been  realized  by  one  numerical  consciousness  ?  Must 
not  all  that  he  said  of  himself  have  been  the  result  of 
one  and  the  same  intelligence  ?  hvA  must  not  all  that  he 
did,  have  been  the  effect  of  one  individual  will  and  power 
of  action  ?  Why  then  should  two  intelligent  natures,  the 
one  divine,  and  the  other  human,  be  ascribed  to  Christ  ? 
How  is  this  consistent  with  his  "  having  in  all  things  been 
made  like  unto  his  brethren*'* — beings  of  the  human  race? 
Have  beings  of  the  human  race  two  intelligent  natures,  the 
one  divine  and  the  other  human  ?  Or  have  they  tivo  human 
intelligent  natures'^.  y^\\Y  then  should  it  be  thought  that 
Christ  has  t'vo  intelligent  natures  ?  Is  not  this  supposition 
mereh/  gratuitous  ?  Should  it,  however,  be  contended 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  possessed  of  two  distinct  souls,  con- 
sciousnesses, &c.  I  have  then  to  ask  whether  it  is  not 
verj^  improper  to  speak  of  these  two  souls,  consciousness- 
es, &c.  as  constituting  one  numerical  person,  or  Christ  ? 
How  is  it  possible  that  two  distinct  intelligent  natures 
should  constitute  one  individual  intelligent  person  or  be- 
ing ?  But  on  the  supposition  that  this  were  possible,  and 
the  real  fact  with  respect  to  Jesus  Christ,  yet,  I  would 
ask,  how  is  it  to  be  ascertained  w^hat  names,  titles,  words, 
and  actions,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  07ie  of  these  natures, 
and  what  to  the  other  ? 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  really  God  and  man  united  in  one 
person,  what  reason  can  be  assigned  why  the  things  which 
he  said  and  did  should  not  be  ascribed  to  his  complex 
person  ?  But  did  not  Jesus  Christ  say — "  Of  that  day  and 
nour  knoweth  no  one  but  the  Father  only."  "  My  Father 
is  greater  than  I."  "  Of  mine  own  self  I  can  do  nothing.'* 
*'  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works.'* 
"  The  words  that  I  speak,  I  speak  not  of  myself."  "  I  am 
not  come  of  myself."  *' My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful^ 
even  unto  death."  *'  My  soul  is  troubled."  "  Father, 
into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit."    Did  not  Jesus 


48 

Christ  say  these  things  of  his  whole  person  ?  l^ut  if  he 
were  God  and  man  united,  could  he  have  said  that  he  did 
not  know  what  his  Father  knevv  ?  that  his  Father  was 
giieater  than  himself  ?  that  of  his  own  self  he  could  do 
nothing  ?  that  his  soul  was  exceeding  sonowful,  &c.  P 
On  the  supposition  that  his  person  consisted  as  well  of 
essential  divinity^  as  of  humanitj'',  his  person  must  have 
known  every  thing  his  Father  knew — his  fjerson  could  not 
have  been  less  than  the  person  of  his  father — //e  could 
have  done  every  thing  with  his  own  underived  and  inde- 
pendent power — and  his  person  must  have  been  incapable 
I  should  think  of  sorrow  and  of  suffering.  Should  it  be 
said  that  in  these  and  similar  declarations  Christ  refeiTcd 
exclusively  to  his  human  nature ;  by  what  authority,  I 
would  ask,  is  this  asserted  ?  Did  Christ  ever  say,  or  even 
intnnate  that  this  was  the  case  ?  I  do  not  recollect  that 
he  ever  speaks  of  himself  as  other  than  ojie  simple  person^ 
or  that  he  ever  intimates  that  he  possessed  more  than  one 
uncompoimded  intelligent  nature.  He  speaks  of  his  soul 
and  spirit^  not  as  complex,  but  as  simple  and  uncom- 
pounded  ;  and  as  connected  with  flesh  and  bones,  as  is 
the  case  with  other  simple  and  uncompounded  souls  or 
spirits.  But  if  Christ  referred  in  the  above  declarations, 
to  but  owe,  and  to  the  lo^vest  of  his  supposed  natures,  he 
could  not  have  made  them  with  reference  to  his  supposed 
person  ;  for  this  person  possessed  two  natures,  which  two 
natures  are  essential  to  the  person.  This  consequence, 
must,  I  think,  be  admitted.  But  should  it  be  urged  that 
Christ  might  have  said  the  things  imder  consideration  with 
reference  to  his  person,  although  he  meant  only  his  hu- 
man nature,  I  have  then  to  ask — Is  it  not  very  strange 
that  in  speaking  of  himself  he  should  refer  to  a  pffr^  of 
himself  onlij,  and  to  that  part,  which,  iif  comparison  v\  ith 
the  other  part  of  himself,  is  as  it  were  nothing — less  dian  a 
ray  of  light  when  compared  with  the  immense  body  of  the 
sun — less  than  an  atom,  when  compared  with  the  uni- 
verse !  Is  it  not.  Sir,  very  strange,  is  it  not,  indeed,  utterly 
unaccountable,  that  Jesus  Christ  should,  in  this  manner, 
speak  of  himself  to  his  disciples  and  to  the  multitude  of 
his  hearers  ?  I  see  not  how  it  can  reasonably  be  admitted 
that  THE  TRUTH,  iu  whom  there  was  no  guile,  should 
imiformly  or  even  generally,  in  speaking  of  himself , 
his  ownself  have  reference  only  to  an  infinitely  minute 
part  of  himself?  Could  he  have  thus  used  the  figure 
termed  synecdoehe  without  deceiving  his  hearers  ?  I  know 
not  that  we  have  any  evidence,  that  either  his  disciples 
or  others  supposed  that  he  used  it.  Why  then  should 
not  we  consider  him,  when  speaking  of  himself,  as  having 
used  plain  and  intelligible  language,  importing  his  Ww/e 
self? 


49 

If  two  natures,  divine  and  human,  composed  the  peVson 
of  Jesus  Christ,  I  have  once  more  to  ask,  whether  these 
two  natures  constituted  the  whole  of  his  character,  exist- 
ence, or  being  ?  If  so,  must  not  his  supposed  union  with 
the  Father  and  the  Spirit,  so  as  to  constitute  one  God,  be 
wliolly  unfounded  ?  But  if  the  two  supposed  natures  are 
iwt  to  be  considered  as  constituting  the  whole  character, 
existence,  or  being  of  Christ,  will  it  not  be  difiicult,  if  not 
impossil>le  to  conceive  vvhat  his  character,  existence,  or 
being  is  ?  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  Dr.  Worcester,  is  a 
*''  being''''  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,  and  is  therefore 
God.  To  this  being  two  other  beings,  possessed  of  all 
divine  attributes,  and  therefore  each  God,  are  united. 
And  these  Three  constitute  one  God._  Must  not  this  one 
God  then  possess  three  sets  of  all  divine  attributes  ?  If 
not,  where  is  the  ground  for  the  supposition  thnt  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  three  distinct  co-equal 
persons,  agents  or  beings  ?  Besides,  must  not  the  "  Sacred 
Three"  be  equally  united  to  man,  or  human  nature  ?  I 
see  not  but  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  must  have  been  as 
really  incarnate  as  the  Son,  and  that  they  must  have  done 
and  suffered  every  thing  which  was  done  and  suffered  by 
the  Son.  Moreover,  as  christians  are  one  with  Christ,  as 
Christ  is  07ie  with  the  Father — as  they  are  one  both  in  the 
Father,  and  in  the  Son,  why  must  it  not  be  admitted,  on. 
Dr.  Worcester's  principles,  that  the  second  person  in  the 
Trinity  is  as  truly,  and  in  the  sa?}ie  se?ise,  united  to  all 
christiajis  or  good  men^  as  he  is  to  the  man^  Christ  Jesus  ? 
And  as  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity  is  so  united  to 
the  other  persons  as  to  constitute  one  God,  must  not  the 
union  so  embrace  all  christians  or  good  men  as  to  include 
them  in  the  Godhead  ? 

These  queries,  Sir,  I  make  not  with  the  view  needlessly  to 
embarrass  the  subject,  or  perplex  your  mind.  My  object 
is  to  state  the  difficulties  w  hich  the  supposed  union  of  two 
infinitely  discrepant  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ  present 
to  my  view,  with  the  hope  to  have  them  removed.  If  you, 
Sir,  can  fairly  and  satisfoctorily  remove  thern,  you  will,  in 
doing  it,  confer  upon  me,  and  many  others,  a  very  high 
obligation,  which  will  very  cheerfully  be  acknowledged. 
But  until  these  difficulties  shall  be  removed,  I  must  think 
it  the  safer  part  to  consider  whatever  Jesus  Christ  says  of 
himself,  and  whatever  is  said  respecting  him,  in  the  volume 
of  revelation,  as  relating  to  his  whole  person^  consisting  of 
one  uncompounded  intellectual  nature^  connected  with,  or 
united  to  a  human  body;  or  as  made  '' //At  unto  his 
brethren."'  If  the  scripture  teaches  a  different  doctrine, 
most  ardently  do  I  desire  to  discover  it — most  gladly 
would  I  embrace  it.  The  text  in  Phil.  ii.  4,  &c.  "  Wh^ 
G 


■  50 

being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robber}-  to  'oc 
equal  with  God,  &:c."  does  not,  I  should  think.,  admit  of  a 
construction,  which  will  justify  the  belief,  that  God  and 
man  compose  one  person,  or  one  Christ.  If  what  is  said 
in  this  passage  relate  to  Jesus  Christ  as  God,  then  Jesus 
Christ,  as  God,  *'  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross."  If  it  relate  to  Jesus  Christ  as  man, 
then  "  every  knee  is  to  bow  at  his  name,  of  things  in  heaven 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  every 
tongue  is  to  confess"  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus  "  h  Lord.'" 
But  if  what  is  said  in  this  passage  relate  to  the  complex 
character  or  person  of  Christ,  then  his  div'mity  as  well  as 
humanitj'^  became  obedient,  suffered  and  died ;  aiid  his 
humamty  as  well  as  divinity  is  an  object  of  worship.  If, 
however,  I  am  too  peremptory  in  these  assertions,  I  am 
willing  that  the}'  should  be  so  modified  as  to  express  only 
my  own  opinion.  But  notwithstanding  the  passage  does 
not  seem  to  admit  of  a  construction  f^ivourable  to  Dr.  W.'s 
hj'pothesis,  yet  I  readily  grant  that  its  exact  import  may 
not  easily  be  ascertained.  I  ^vill,  however,  venture  to 
suggest  whether  the  following  construction  is  not  fairly 
admissible,  and  probably  correct — "  Christ,  althougii  he 
was  or  had  been  in  the  form  or  likeness  of  God,  xvas  not 
eager  in  retaining  that  form  or  likeness,  but  on  the  con- 
traiy,  humbled  or  emptied  himself,  Sec."  If  Jesus  Christ 
had  been  strictly  equal  with  God,  or  possessed  of  all 
divine  attributes,  how  could  he  have  humbled  or  emptied 
himself^  Is  not  the  supposition  too  extravagant  to  claim 
rational  belief?  Of  this  some  of  the  most  eminent  Trini- 
tarian wTiters  have  been  aware,  and  have  accortlingly  given  ^ 
to  the  passage  a  construction  similar  to  that  which  I  have^ 
suggested. 

Letter  2,  p.  7,  Dr.  Worcester  observes  that  "  the  high- 
est holy  creature  v,^ould  shudder  at  the  ascription  to  him 
of  the  names,  and  titles,  and  honours  ascribed  to  Jesus 
Christ."  This,  Sir,  is  a  very  strong  expression,  and  cal- 
culated to  make  a  very  strong  impression  on  tiie  minds  of 
many  of  its  readers  ;  and  such  an  impression  as  ought  not 
to  be  made.  Whatever  the  Doctor  might  have  intended 
by  it,  its  most  obvious  import  seems  to  be,  that  all  holy 
created  beings,  however  dignified,  would  reject  with  hoiTor 
the  names,  titles,  and  honours,  generally,  xyhich  are  ascrib- 
ed to  Christ,  were  they  ascribed  to  themselves ;  that  these 
names,  titles,  and  honours  are  not  ascribed  to  any  created 
being ;  and  therefore,  that  Christ  must  be  self-existent. 
If  the  Doctor  did  not  mean  to  be  thus  understood,  he 
i^xpressed  himself,  I  thini?,  very  unguardedly.  But  if  he 
did  mean  to  be  thus  understood,  I  know  notho\v  toaccount 
tor  it,  as  the  names,  &c.  generally,  which  are  ascribed  tq 


51 

Christ,  are  in  fact  ascribed  also  to  holy  created  beings.  I 
must  suppose,  therefore,  that  Dr.  W.  must  ha^'e  intended, 
exclusi\  ely,  tlie  highest  and  most  sacred  names  and  titles 
which  are  ascribed  to  Christ.  But  is  it  a  fact  tlrat  these 
are  not  ascribed  to  created  beings  ?  Are  the  names  and 
titles,  Holy  One,  Deliverer,  Saviour,  High  Priest,  Judge, 
Governor,  Leader,  Ihder,  King,  King  of  kings.  Lord, 
Emanuel,  God,  Jehovah,  (Aleim,)  ascribed  to  Christ  ? 
But  are  they  not  ascribed  also  to  created  beings  ?  Accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Worcester  it  seems  they  are  not.  Yet  I  must 
be  permitted  on  the  authority  of  scripture,  to  believe  and 
say,  that  they  really  are  ascribed  to  created  and  holy  beings. 
Now  since  the  most  sacred  names  and  titles  which  are 
ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ,  are  ascribed  also  to  angels  and 
men,  what  proof  does  their  being  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ 
afford  in  support  of  his  supreme  divinity  ?  The  argument 
drawn  from  this  circumstance,  must  appear,  I  should 
think,  to  every  attentive  and  unbiassed  mind  extremely 
inconclusive.  And  when  it  is  considered  that  the  names 
and  titles,  generally,  which  are  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ, 
are  in  fact  ascribed  also  to  created  beings,  what  are  we  to 
think  of  the  Doctor's  assertion,  "  that  the  highest  holy 
creature  vvould  shudder  at  the  ascription  to  him  of  those 
names  and  titles  ?"  What  he  means  by  this  unfounded 
assertion,  I  neither  know,  nor  can  I  form  any  satisfactory 
conjecture.  The  assertion  has  excited  in  me,  I  confess, 
no  common  surprise.  Nor  is  this  surprise  in  any  degree 
diminished  by  the  consideration  that  Dr.  W.  without 
"  shuddering,"  and,  I  presume,  without  remonstance, 
suffers,  habitually  suilers,  one  of  the  most  sacred  and  vener- 
able names  or  titles  of  the  Supreme  Jehovah  to  be  ascribed 
to  himself.  "  Reverend  is  his  name."  But  why  does 
he  not  "  shudder"  at  this  ascription  ?  Is  it  because  he  is 
not  a  "  holy  creature  ?"  But  this,  my  dear  Sir,  I  would 
by  no  means  insinuate.  Nor  would  I  be  understood,  in  any 
thing  I  have  said,  as  treating  Dr.  W.  disrepectfuUy.  This 
has  been  far  from  my  design.  I  would,  however,  be 
understood  as  strongly  insinuating  that  he  has  made  a  very 
incorrect  and  exceptionable  assertion,  and  that  he  has 
"  condemned  himself  in  that  thing  which  he  alloweth"  to  be 
shudderingly  impious.  I  am  willing  to  be  understood  as 
suggesting  also,  whether  the  title  Reverend  is  not  of  too 
sacred  an  import  to  be  ascribed,  in  the  manner  it  is,  to  the 
professedly  unaspiring  and  humble  ministers  of  the  meek 
and  humble  Jesus  ? 

If"  the  highest  holy  creature"  does  not  shudder  at  the 
ascription  to  him  of  the  names  and  titles  ascribed  to  Jesus 
Christ,  I  can  see  no  reason  why  he  should  shudder  at 
the  ascription  to  him  of  die  "  honours''^  ascribed  to  Jesus 


52 

Christ ;  for  the  honours  ascribed  to  him,  consist,  in  part, 
in  the  ascription  of  high  and  sacred  names  and  titles  ;  and 
the  other  honours  which  are  paid  to  him  are  "  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father.''''  But  would  the  highest  holy- 
creature  shudder  at  honours  ascribed  to  him,  w  hich  ulti- 
mately terminate  upon  the  one  Supreme  ?  Such  honours 
have  always  been  giA^n  to  holy  creatures.  And  although 
they  are  not  equal  to  those  which  are  to  be  given  to  Jesus 
Christ,  yet  are  they  not  similar  in  land?  I  pray  you.  Sir, 
to  review  this  subject  with  much  attention,  and  then  decide 
whether  Dr.  W.  is  to  be  justified  in  his  strong,  and 
peremptory,  and  unqualified  assertion. 

Letter  3,  p.  16,  Dr.  Worcester  asks,  "  Is  it  credible, 
that  in  a  divine  revelation,  a  principal  object  of  which  is  to 
guard  mankind  against'  idolatry  ;  and  to  teach  them  the 
true  worship,  the  representations  are  such  as  to  make  the 
great  body  of  christians  in  every  age  idolaters — as  the  fact 
certainly  is,  if  Christ  is  not  truly  God  V  This  question  is 
highly  interesting,  and  its  peremptory  decision  by  the 
Dr.  has  a  strong  claim  to  an  awakened  and  most  serious 
attention.  Although  it  is  not  to  be  admitted,  that,  in  the 
"  divine  re\  elation,  the  representations  are  such  as  to  make 
the  great  body  of  christians"  in  any  age  ""  idolaters,"  yet 
It  cannot  reasonably  be  denied,  perhaps,  that  die  great  body 
of  christians  ha\  e  been  idolaters  from  about  the  close  of 
the  fifth  century,  in  every  successive  period,  down  to  the 
present  time.  During  the  lapse  of  nearly  a  thousand  years, 
scarcely  any  but  christian  idolaters  ^vere  to  be  found  till 
the  memorable  era  of  the  Refokmation,  through  the 
instrumentality  of  Luther,  Calvin,  and  other  worthies,  who 
distinguished  themseh^es  in  that  great  and  noble  achieve- 
jnent.  The  JFaldenses  and  Albigcjises  did  not  indeed 
*'  bow  the  knee  to  the  image  of  Baal."  And  it  is  worthy 
of  remark  that  these  true  worshippers  of  CTod  were  deemed 
as  hereticks^  and  as  such  were  most  inhumanly  persecuted, 
because  tliey  dissented  from  the  generally  Ytctwtdiorthodooc 
faith.  Nor  is  evidence  wanting  that  many,  if  not  the  most 
of  them,  were  dissenters  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
From  the  period  of  the  reformation  to  the  present  time,  the 
great  body,  or  the  majority  of  christians,  have  been  idola- 
trous in  their  worship,  if  the  papal  or  catholic  religion  is  to 
be  considered  as  idolatr5\  But  arc  we  to  infer  from  this 
melancholy  fact  that  the  *■'  representations  in  the  Bible," 
are  such  as  to  make  men  idolaters  ?  This  inference,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  \V.'s  insinuation,  seems  but  natural.  Yet  I 
cannot  but  think  that  the  idolatry  of  the  great  body  of 
christians  is  to  be  otherwise  accounted  for.  Is  it  not.  Sir, 
to  be  traced  up  to  human  creeds  and  formularies,  and  to 
their  indiscreet  and  ambitious  authors,  as  an  important  if 
not  a  priiicipal  occasion  ? 


53 

Whether  the  great  bodj^  of  christians  in  the  protesfant 
world  are  idolaters,  I  pretend  not  positively  to  decide.  But 
if  their  worship,  in  fact,  be  idolatrous,  it  is  not  to  be 
imputed,  I  am  fully  persuaded,  to  any  representations  in  the 
Bible ;  for  these  representations  verj''  strongly  "  guard 
mankind  against  idolatry. '*'  They  seem  very  clearly  to 
exhibit  to  our  view  the  Supreme  God  as  One,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others — as  one  uncompounded person, 
being,  or  agent.  These  representations  seem  also  clci.rly 
to  teach  us  that  this  cnie  God,  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Father  of  all,  isthe  alone  object  of  supreme  worship. 
Indeed  Jesus  Christ  himself  worshipped  him  as  such, 
*'  leaving  us  an  example  that  we  should  follow  his  steps." 
And  this  example  he  enforced  by  precept.  He  taught  to 
pray  to  the  Father,  and  assured  us  that  the  true  -worshippers 
worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  Nor  have  we,  I  con- 
ceive, any  approved  example  in  scripture  of  supreme 
worship  paid  to  any  other  person,  being  or  agent,  than  to 
the  one  God,  even  the  Father.  But  if  the  Father  alone  is 
the  true  God,  and  to  be  rvorshipped  as  such,  does  it  cer- 
tainly follow  that  the  great  body  of  protestant  christains  are 
idolaters  ?  According  to  Dr.  W.'s  theory,  this  conclusion 
seems  inevitable.  This,  indeed,  he  says  "  is  certain,  if 
Jesus  Christ  is  not  truly  God."  By  the  great  body  of 
christians  I  understand  him  to  mean  protestant  Trinita- 
rians. These  christians  do  not  acknowledge  "  the  Father 
alone  to  be  the  Supreme  God."  But  they  worship  "  The 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.'''*  If  the  Son,  therefore,  is 
not  truly  God,  they  are,  if  we  may  believe  Dr.  W.  "  idola- 
ters.'''' It  is  distinctly  to  be  noticed  that  he  speaks  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  a  being,  an  agent,  as  God — as  truly  God,  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  Father,  and  as  equal  to  the  Father. 
Now  if  Dr.  W.  and  other  Trinitarians,  besides  worshipping 
the  Father,  do  really  worship  Jesus  Christ  as  a  being,  as 
God,  equal  to  the  Father,  I  see  not,  I  confess,  but  "  the 
fact  certainlif  is,"  that  they  are  "  idolaters,"  or  that  they 
equally  worship  two  equal  Gods.  And  if  tliey,  in  like 
manner,  worship  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  the  fact,  it  seems, 
certainly  is,  that  they  equally  worship  three  equal  Gods. 
If  these  conclusions  do  not  unavoidably  result  from  the 
Doctor's  statements,  most  ardently  do  I  wish  to  be  con- 
vinced that  they  do  not.  I  am  not  unaware,  however,  that 
the  Doctor  supposes  that  these  three  beings,  agents,  or 
Gods,  are  in  some  mysterious  way  so  united  as  to  consti- 
tute but  one  God.  But  does  he  suppose  that  this  one  God 
is  but  one  being,  and  possessed  of  but  one  set  or  class  of 
infinite  perfections  ?  If  this  be  his  supposition,  and  if  he 
and  other  Trinitarians  worship  this  one  God,  or  being,  only 
as  the  supreme  object  of  worship,  I  do  not  see  but  they 


54 

worship  precisely  the  same  God,  as  Unitarians  profess  to 
worship.  But  as  the  Doctor  can  by  no  means  admit  this 
to  be  the  flict,  who,  or  what,  I  would  ask,  is  the  object  of 
Trinitarian  worship  ?  Is  this  object  a  supposed  essence 
common  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  ?  If  so,  I 
would  further  ask,  whether  this  essence  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  person,  or  personality?  If  so,  and  if  the 
essence  is  the  object  of  worship,  then  tlie  persons  to  A\'hom 
the  essence  belongs  are  to  l^e  excluded  from  divine  worsliip. 
But  should  this  be  denied,  then  I  have  to  ask,  whetlier 
there  must  not  be  four  objects  of  worship  i?i  the  Godhead  ? 
If  the  essence  which  is  common  to  the  Three  Persons  is  to 
be  worshipped,  and  if  the  Persons  themselves  are  also  to 
be  worshipped,  can  it  consistently  be  denied  that  christians 
have  four  objects  of  divine  worship?  I  hope,  Sir,  that 
you  will  not  consider  these  queries  as  trifling,  or  captious, 
or  as  irrelevant  to  the  subject  under  review.  I  certainly 
consider  them  as  pertinent  and  strongly  requiring  very 
serious  attention,  and  plain  and  unequivocal  answers. 

I  hope.  Sir,  that  I  have  said  nothing  on  this  subject 
which  you  will  construe  into  a  charge  against  Trinitari- 
ans of  idolatry.  I  viould  be  understood  as  saying  only, 
that  according  to  what  Dr.  Worcester  sai/s,  they  seem 
to  be  chargeable  with  idolatrous  worship.  Yet  notwith- 
standing I  thus  speak,  it  is  my  belief  that  they  are  not 
designedly  idolatrous  in  their  worship,  and  my  devout 
wish,  that  they  may,  in  no  degree,  be  chargeable  with. 
the  guilt  of  such  worship.  Dr.  W.  has  expressed  him- 
self on  this  subject,  as  he  is  apt  to  do  on  other  subjects, 
with  too  much  decision.  "  If  Jesus  Christ  is  not  truly 
God,"  I  am  not  prepared  with  the  Dr.  peremptorily 
to  say,  "  that  the  great  body  of  christians  are  idolaters  ;" 
for  they  appear  to  me  seldom  if  ever  to  worship  Jesus 
Christ,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  essentially  divine  persons. 
The  most  zealous  Trinitarians  with  ^vhom  I  have  united 
in  worship,  disclaim  generally,  in  their  prayers,  if  their 
expressions  are  inlelligible,  the  worship  both  of  the  Son 
and  Spirit.  They  very  devoutly  thank  God  the  Father 
for  having  sent  his  Sou  into  the  world  to  die  for  sinners, 
and  implore  pardon  of  sin  in  his  name,  through  him,  or 
for  his  sake.  They  also  supplicate  God,  the  Father,  that 
he  would  mercifully  i)our  out  his  Spirit  to  sanctify  the 
heart,  and  to  enliven  its  languid  affections.  Thus  they 
rommonly  pray,  and  address  their  petitions  to  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But  in  doing  this,  are 
we  to  understand  them  as  implying  that  the  Father  is 
three  persons,  or  that  the  Son  had  a  joint  agency  with  the 
Father  in  sending  himself  to  die  for  sinners  ?  or  as  sup- 
plicating the  Son,  as  well  as  the  Father,  that  the  Son 


S3 

with  the  Father,  would  grant  pardon  through  himsel/ 
(the  Son)  or  /or  his  own  sake  ?  Or  when  they  pray  the 
Father  to  pour  out  his  Spirit,  &c.  would  they  be  under- 
stood as  praying  to  the  Spirit,  as  a  distinct  person,  that 
he  would,  in  connexion  with  the  Father,  pour  out  him- 
self ?  If  they  would  be  thus  understood,  their  expres- 
sions are  certainly  very  illy  adapted  to  their  design.  It 
is  believed,  however,  that  they  are  not  thus  understood 
by  their  hearers  in  general,  ^vhatever  they  may  intend- 
Nor  can  I  conceix^e  that  men  of  serious  thought  and 
reflection  will  pretend,  that  M-hen  they  address  the  Fath- 
er, as  abo-ve  stated,  they  either  design,  or  wish,  to  be 
understood  as  addressing  the  Son  and  tlie  Holy  Spirit. 
What  then  does  Dr.  W.  mean — ^^•hat  ean  he  mean 
^^•hen  he  says,  "  We  worship  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  ?"  I  cannot  tell,  nor  can  I  satisfactorily  con- 
jecture what  he  means.  If  in  these  expressions  he  him- 
self is  able  to  discover  any  distinct  and  intelligible 
meaning,  he  would  very  highly  gratify  many  serious 
and  inquiring  christians,  as  well  Trinitarian,  as  Unita- 
rian, by  an  intelligible  disclosure  of  it. 

But  notwithstanding  Trinitarian  christians  habitually 
make  Unitarian  prayers,  they  sometimes,  it  is  to  be  ad- 
mitted, deviate  from  their  general  practice.  When  tliey 
pray  theoretieally,  or  doctrinally ,  or  in  a  controva'sial 
manner,  they  address  a  triune  God  in  a  few  petitions,  and 
then  exclusiveli/  address  but  one  of  the  persons,  either 
the  Father,  Son  or  Spirit ;  but  almost  invariablj'-  tte 
Father.  The  consistency  of  this  I  cannot  discover. 
Indeed  such  prayers  seem  to  me  very  inconsistent.  Nor 
is  it  impossible  that  they  are  sometimes  made  w'lih  a 
spirit  not  so  devotional  as  the  solemn  subject  requires. 
I  have  sometimes,  on  public  occasions,  heard  prayers  of 
this  description,  witli  heait-felt  grief,  not  so  much  how- 
ever on  account  of  the  expressions  used  in  them,  as  on 
account  of  the  apparent  indevout  and  unhallo^ved  spirit 
with  which  they  were  uttered.  W'^ere  Trinitarian  chris- 
tians more  thoroughly  to  revolve  this  subject  in  their 
minds,  I  cannot  but  think  they  would  entirely  abandon 
this  manner  of  praying  ;  and  that  instead  of  using  un- 
scriptural  ascriptions  or  doxologies,  they  would  give  a 
practical  preference  to  those  prescribed  by  the  Spirit 
of  inspiration.  Is  it  not  \QYy  greatly  to  be  lamented 
that  2i  flagrant  departure,  in  prayer,  Irom  the  scriptural 
''''foim  of  sound  ivords^''  should  be  considered  as  indica- 
tive of  soundness  in  the  faith  Once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
and  that  an  adhei'ence  to  that  most  perfect  form  should 
be  condemned  as  expressive  of  heresy  ?  Have  we  not 
much  reason  to  suspect  Uie  correctness  of  that  theory. 


56 

which,  rejecting  tlie  pure  words  of  the  gospel  given  by 
the  inspiration  of  God,  calls  to  its  aid  words  of  man's 
invention,  and  words  too  which  are  neither  explained, 
nor,  it  is  believed,  capable  of  being  explained  ?  Are 
christian  ministers,  or  private  christians,  to  be  praised  in 
this  ?  I  praise  them  not.  And  shall  1  say  too  much  if 
I  add,  "  these  things  ought  not  so  to  be." 

Letter  1,  pp.  28,  35,  Dr.  Worcester,  addressing.  Mr. 
Channing,  observes  *'  The  God  m  hom  you  worship  is 
different  from  ours."  "  The  differences  which  exist 
between  the  Unitarians  and  the  orthodox  christians  are 
certainly  of  a  nature,  to  demand  the  most  serious  and 
earnest  attention." — That  this  attention  ought  to  be  giv- 
en to  the  differences  which  exist  between  these  denom- 
inations of  christians,  and  pai'ticulariy  in  relation  to  the 
one  God,  I  readily  admit.  And  most  ardently  do  I 
wish  that  this  subject  of  difference  between  them  might 
be  attended  to  by  both  parties,  not  only  in  a  "  most 
serious  and  earnest  manner,"  but  with  minds  free  from 
all  unreasonable  prepossessions — fully  open  to  convic- 
tion, and  with  all  the  meekness  of  wisdom.  If,  as  Dr. 
W.  says,  the  God  whom  Unitarians  worship  be  different 
from  the  God  whom  Trinitarians  worship,  the  difference 
ought  distinctly  to  be  marked  out,  that  it  might  be  clearly 
seen  and  known  of  all  men.  Unitarians  professedly  wor- 
ship but  one  Supreme  God  as  an  object  of  supreme  \i'or- 
ship.  But  do  Trinitarians  worship  more  than  one  Supreme 
God  ?  To  this  one  God  Unitarians  ascribe  self-existence, 
independence  and  all  divine  and  infinite  perfection,  both 
natural  and  moral.  But  do  Trinitarians  ascribe  more  than 
this  to  their  God  ?  In  their  prayers  Unitarians  hope 
*'  through  Christ  to  have  access  by  one  Spirit  unto  the 
Father."  They  perform  their  devotions  "  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  the  Father  by  him." 
And  to  do  this  acceptably,  they  profess  to  believe  that  thej^ 
must  be  under  the  guidimce  and  sanctifying  influence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  But  do  not  Trinitarians  hope  to  have 
access  to  the  Father  through  Christ,  and  by  the  Spiiit  ? 
Do  they  not  generally  pray  to  the  Father  in  tJie  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  hhn  give  thanks  to  the  Father  ? 
And  do  they  not  believe  that  in  order  to  do  this  acceptably, 
they  must  !:>e  under  the  guidance  and  sanctifying  injiuence 
of  God's  Spirit  ?  What  then  is  the  difference  between  the 
God  whom  Unitarians  worship,  and  the  God  whom  Trin- 
itarians worship  ?  And  what  is  the  difference  between 
tliem  with  respect  to  the  mode  or  manner  in  which  they 
perform  divine  worship  ?  I  am  aware  indeed  that  Trini- 
tarian christians  do  sometimes  in  their  worship  of  God  use 
expressions  which  seem  to  import  the  existence  of  three 


57 

co-equal  Gods.  But  as  they  explicitly  disclaim  the  wor- 
ship of  more  Gods  than  one,  may  not  the  one  God  whom 
they  profess  to  worship  be  essentially  the  same  as  the  one 
God  whom  Unitarians  profess  to  worship  ?  I  wish  to 
believe  that  this  is  the  real  fact,  nor  can  I  but  indulge  the 
hope  that  the  difference  between  them,  as  to  worship,  is 
ratjier  seeming  than  I'eal.  But  should  a  real  difference  in 
opinion  between  them  exist  as  to  the  mode  of  the  existence 
of  the  one  God,  can  this  difference  be  of  any  serious 
importance?  Are  we  required  to  make  the  mode  of  the 
divine  existence  an  article  of  faith  ?  Or  can  we  by  search- 
ing find  out  what  this  mode  is  ?  Is  it  not  the  part  then  of 
christian  modesty  and  prudence  to  leave  with  God  "  the 
secret  things,"  and  make  it  our  main  object  suitably  to 
impro\'e  "  those  which  are  revealed  ?" 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  I  would  ask  whether  such 
difference  really  exists  "  betv^een  the  Unitarians  and  the 
orthodox  christians"  in  relation  to  the  character  of  God, 
or  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  to  make  it  sinful  or  even  improper 
to  either  denomination  to  commune  with  the  other,  either 
at  the  Lord's  table,  or  in  any  act  of  devotion,  or  worship  ? 
To  decide  this  question  as  it  ought  to  be  decided,  may  in 
some  cases,  be  difficult.  Dr.  Worcester,  however,  if  I 
understand  him,  repeatedly  gi\Ts  it  as  his  opinion  in  his 
Letters,  particularly,  Letter  2,  p.  39,  that  communion 
between  Unitarian  and  Trinitarian  christians  is  generally 
inadmissible.  Speaking  of  a  Trinitarian  church,  "  in  the 
act  of  celebrating  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  at  his  table," 
he  observes — "  They  unite  in  worshipping  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit ;  in  adoring  Christ  as  their  almighty 
Saviour,  and  gratefully  ascribing  the  forgiveness  of  their 
sins.  Sec.  entirely  to  his  propitiatory  sacrifice  ;  and  in  de- 
voutly acknowledging  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  their  Sanciifier, 
and  Comforter,  and  praising  him  as  the  efficient  Producer 
in  them  of  all  holy  affections  and  consolations."  "  Can  a 
Unitarian,  (the  Doctor  then  asks)  who  denies  all  these 
doctrines,  have  communion  with  the  church  in  this  solemn 
and  interesting  scene  ?  Must  it  not  be  to  him  a  scene  of 
abominable  idolatry  ;  a  most  delusive  and  flagitious  perver- 
sion of  the  sacred  institution  ?  In  regard  to  the  whole, 
the  doctrine  and  the  worship  founded  upon  them,  is  he  not 
an  unbeliever  V  This  passage.  Sir,  is  evidendy  designed 
TO  exhibit  a  contrast  between  the  Unitarian  and  the  Trini- 
tarian theory  and  worship  in  a  very  strong  point  of  light. 
But  whether  the  contrast  is  exhibited  in  a  just  point  of 
lights  I  will  not  venture  to  decide,  as  I  do  not  suinciently 
understand  what  is  the  true  character  of  the  Trinitarian 
theory  and  worship.  But  if  from  this  contrast  it  is  fairly 
to  be  inferred,  that  the  Trinitiirian  celebration  of  tlie  sacra. 
H 


58 

aicniai  buppcr,  must  be  to  the  Unitarian  "  a  scene  of 
abominable  idolatry  ;  a  most  delusive  and  flagitious  perver- 
sion of  the  sacred  institution,"  he  could  not,  it  is  true,  be 
desirous  of  communing  with  a  Trinitarian  church.  Ncr 
could  he  ^vith  propriety  do  it.  But  does  the  Unitarian 
christian  view  the  "  scene"  as  abominable  idolatry  ? 
However  the  subject  may  appear  to  individual  christians 
of  that  denomination,  I  am  far  from  believing  that  the 
great  body  of  them  suppose  that  Trinitarians,  in  celebrating 
the  Lord's  supper,  are  either  chargeable  with  abominable 
idolatry^  or  that  they  are  guilty  of  ix^agifious  perversion  of 
the  sacred  institution.  They  belie\'e,  indeed,  that  Trinita- 
rians are  incorrect  in  their  views  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  and  that  they  are  sometimes  still  more  incor- 
rect in  their  expressions.  The  passage  above  quoted 
furnishes,  I  think,  striking  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  re- 
mark. "  In  celebrating  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  at 
his  table,"  Dr.  W.  observes,  that  a  Trinitarian  Church 
"  adore  Christ  as  their  almighty  Saviour."  But  what 
does  he  mean  by  Christ  ?  The  triune  God?  This,  it  is 
presumed,  he  will  not  admit,  unless  he  belie\'es  that  the 
Triune  God  made  "  a  propitiatory  sacrifice"  by  dying  on 
the  cross  ?  Does  he  mean  then  that  Christ,  the  second 
person  in  the  Trinity,  is  the  Abnighty  Saviour  ?  But  \\  ill 
he  admit  that  there  are  two  or  more  Almighty  Sa\'iours  '? 
If  not,must  not  Christ  be  the  almighty  Saviour,  exclusively 
of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  In  "  acknowledging 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  their  Sanctifier  and  Comforter,"  does 
the  Doctor  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  a  person  distinct  from  the  Father,  is  their  Sanctifier  and 
Comforter  ?  But  how  is  this  consistent  with  saints  being 
"  sanctified,  and  wholly  sanctified  by  God  the  Father  ?" 
Or  how  is  it  consistent  with  the  declarations  of  the  inspired 
apostle,  that  "  God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  is  the  God  of  «// comfort ;"  that  he  "  comforteth 
us  in  all  our  tribulations,"  that  he  is  "  the  God  of  consola- 
tion^'''' and  "  giveth  everlasting  consolation."  Besides,  if 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  distinct  person,  is  to  be  "  praised  as 
the  efficient  Producer  of  o// holy  affections,"  does  it  not 
seem  that  no  praise  is  due  to  the  Fatiier,  who,  the  scriptures 
assure  us,  "  xvorketh  in  us  both  to  will  and  do  o'L  his  good 
pleasure^''''  "  makes  us  perfect  in  every  good  work  to  do 
his  will,  working  that  which  is  well  pleasing  in  his  sight 
through  Jesus  Christ  ?"  But  is  no  praise  due  to  God,  the 
Father,  as  the  "  Producer  of  «//  holy  affections" — and  as 
that  Great  Efficient,"  who  worketh  all  in  oil  ? ' ' 
Perhi'.ps,  however,  you  \\\\\  say  that  the  Doctor,  by  Holy 
Spirit,  means  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  If  this 
be  the  fact,  why  has  he  not  told  us  so  ?    But  it  is  hardly  to 


59 

be  supposed,  that  this  is  his  meaning,  and  especially  as  he 
seems  to  consider  the  terms  Sancirfier  and  Comforter  as 
appropriate  to  the  Spirit,  and  distinguishes  the  worship  of 
the  Spiiit  from  that  of  the  Father  ond  of  the  Son.  But 
notwithstanding  he  seems  to  represent  "  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit"  as  three  distinct  beings,  or  Gods,  to 
whom  Trinitarians  gi\e  supreme  worship  ;  yet  I  cannot 
think  that  he  Mould  be  imderstood  as  bclic\'ing  in,  or 
pleading  for  a  worship  which  is  "  abominable  idolatry." 
Nor  can  I  believe  that  reflecting  christians  of  any  denom- 
iation  think  so.  But  what  the  Doctor  does  mean  I 
pretend  not  to  determine.  His  expressions  are  calculated 
to  produce  much  indistinctness  and  confusion  of  thought, 
and  such  practical  results,  I  fear,  as  neither  scripture 
nor  sober  reason  will  justify.  Yet  I  am  not  prepared  to 
say  that  either  scripture  or  sober  reason  will  justify  any 
description  of  Unitariar?  christians  in  refusing  to  commune 
Avith  a  Trinitarian  church,  "  in  the  act  of  celebrating  the 
death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  at  his  table."  Nor  do  I  tliink  that 
Unitarians,  generally,  would  decline  such  communion,  on 
any  inviting  occasion.  I  have  indeed  supposed  that  chris- 
tians of  this  description,  with  very  few  exceptions,  were 
willing  and  e\  en  desirous  to  maintain  christian  communion 
even  in  the  most  solemn  acts  of  religion,  with  their  Trini- 
tarian brethren.  And  this,  I  conceive,  they  can  consistently 
do  so  long  as  these  their  christian  brethren  profess  to  believe 
in,  and  to  worship  but  one  Supreme  God.  Their  attach- 
ment to  the  use  of  the  expression  Trinitij  in  Unity,  and  oth- 
er expressions  M'hich  may  be  thought  equally  exceptiona- 
ble, and  which  may  involve  incorrect  and  misleading  ideas, 
does  not,  I  think,  afford  suflicient  ground  to  any  for  with- 
drawing from  communion  ^vith  them,  since  they  solemnly 
disclaim  the  doctrine  of  polytheism. 

In.  the  Letter  and  page  last  quoted,  Dr.  Worcester 
invites  his  readers  to  "  change  the  scene^  Here  he  de- 
scribes a  Unitarian  Church  "  at  the  table  of  the  holy 
supper.  They  refuse,  (he  observes)  to  worship  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  they  deny  the  divinity  and  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  remember  him  only  as  a  good  man, 
who  '  suflTered  and  died  in  the  best  of  causes,'  but  *  in  the 
occasion  and  manner  of  Avhose  death  there  \vas  nothing 
very  different  from  that  of  others,  who  suffered  and  died 
after  him  in  the  same  catise,  &c.'  "  "  What  (asks  the  Dr.) 
has  an  orthodox  cliristian  to  do  with  such  a  communion  ? 
Can  he  join  in  divesting  his  adored  Saviour  of  his  glory — 
in  profaning  the  sacred  memorial  of  his  dying  love — in 
making  ''his  blood  an  unholy  thing?''"  On  reading  this 
passage  the  first  question  arising  in  my  mind  is,  whether 
Ur.  W.  would  be  understood  as  giving  a  fair  and   '*  an- 


60 

varnished"  representation  of  ""  a  church  of  Unitarians,  (say 
if  you  please  of  low  Unitarians")  in  any  of  the  New-Eng- 
land States  ?  If  so,  I  cannot  but  think  him  blameable  ; 
as  I  strongly  suspect  that  a  Unitarian  church,  answering  to 
his  description,  does  not  exist  either  in  the  New- England 
States,  or  in  any  State  in  the  Union.  It  is  indeed 
ver}'  questionable  whether  a  church  in  Christendom  is  to 
be  found,  uhose  character  is  justly  delineated  in  the  above 
quotation.  Although  the  Doctor  is  correct  in  saying  of 
Unitarians  that  "  they  refuse  to  worship  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,"  if  by  this  he  means  that  they  do  not  worship  Jesus 
Clirist  as  God,  equal  lo  the  Father,  nor  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
God,  distinct  from  the  Father ;  yet  I  do  not  think  him 
justifiable  in  his  unqualified  assertion.  _No  Unitarian,  I 
presume,  refuses  to  worship  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of 
God — as  the  Messiah,  or  as  a  person  whom  God  exalted 
to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour.  Nor  do  Unitarians,  it  is 
pR  sumed,  refuse  to  worship  the  Holy  Spirit  as  God,  al- 
though they  do  not\\orship  him  as  another  or  distinct  person 
from  God.  "  God  is  a  Spirit" — a  Holy  Spirit — the  Holy 
Spirit.  As  such,  Unitarians  worship  Him.  Indeed  the 
worship  of  God  necessarily  invol\es  the  ^vorship  of  his 
Spirit,  or  Himself  as  a  Spirit,  or  that  Holy  Spirit  which 
fills  immensity.  How  then  can  Dr.  W.  be  justified  in  his 
decisive  and  uriqualified  declaration,  that  a  church  of  Uni- 
tarians, at  the  table  of  the  holy  supper,  refuse  to  worship 
the  Sen,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  And  by  what  authority 
dc^s  he  represent  them  asp ro/cwfw^^  the  sacred  memorial 
of  Christ's  dying  love,  and  in  making  "  his  blood  an  unholy 
thing .'"  It  is  much  to  be  lamented  that  a  man  of  Doctor 
W^orcester's  resi^ectability  and  influence  should  say  these 
thi'.igs,  They  do  appear  to  me  highly  incorrect,  and  calcu- 
lated lo  }7focluce  effects  baleful  to  the  christian  temper  and 
to  christian  practice.  Most  fervently  do  I  hope  that  the 
Doctor  will  verj'  seriously  review  what  he  his  written,  that 
if  his  pen  has  been  misguided,  he  may  be  convinced  of  it, 
and  prom]5tly  correct  its  errors. 

Can  it  be  rigiit,  my  dear  Sir,  in  Trinitarian  churches, 
to  deny  "  children's  l)rcad"  to  their  Unitarian  brethren, 
and  cast  them  out  of  their  community,  as  "  unbeliev- 
ers," when  they  professedly  believe  in,  and  worship 
Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ?  and 
when  they  acknowledge  and  worship  the  one  God  as 
the  Holy  and  Supreme  Spirit?  I  am  strongly  apprehen- 
sive that  in  doing  this  they  *'  walk  not  charitably  ;" 
and  jhat  they  are  far  from  rendering  to  God  an  accept- 
able service,  and  securing  the  approbation  of  the  Lord 
^f?sus  Christ.  Such  conduct  in  the  estimation  ofDr.'s 
Ppil^r^ge  and  Watts,  and  many  others  of  like  charac- 


61 

ter,  Was,  in  the  highest  degree,  censurable.  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge in  particular  would  "  sooner  ha^e  given  up  his 
place  and  sacrificed  his  life,"  than  have  countenanced 
an  attempt  in  some  of  his  church,  to  excommunicate, 
or  suspend  from  communion,  one  of  the  members  who 
was  a  Sociman.  But  did  these  eminently  enlightened 
and  holy  men  possess  a  smaller  portion  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  or  less  christian  zeal  in  the  cause  of  pure  and 
undefiled  religion^  than  is  possessed  by  those  christian 
ministers  of  the  present  daj',  who  exclude  from  their 
communion  their  brediren,  who  do  not  think  it  right  to 
use  their  peculiar  and  unscriptwol  expressions,  respect- 
ing the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  ?  Happy  were  it 
for  our  churches,  if  a  greater  number  of  Doddridges 
and  Wattses  were  to  be  found,  to  heal  the  breaches  which 
unhappily  exist  among  christians  of  different  denom- 
inations. 

But  while  it  is  to  be  lamented  that  christian  ministers 
and  churches,  in  so  many  instances,  set  at  nought  each 
other,  is  not  the  manner  in  which  they  too  often  do  this, 
much  more  to  be  lamented  ?  Have  not  instances  occur- 
red of  brorher  rejecting  brother,  in  violation  of  the  ex- 
press precepts  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Have  not  instance* 
occurred  of  suspension  and  excommunication  of  private 
niembeis  of  churches,  in  a  manner,  which  the  disciplin- 
ary laws  of  Christ's  kingdom  do  not  admit  ?  And  are 
not  these  unjustifiable  things  and  proceedings  to  be 
traced,  in  some  measure,  at  least,  to  the  letters  of  Dr. 
Worcester  and  similar  publications  ?  This  suggestion 
certainly  demands  a  very  serious  and  interested  consid- 
eration.— Lord  of  compassion  !  may  it  please  thee  to 
rectify  the  intellectual  and  moral  en'ors  of  contending 
christians,  and  so  to  unite  them  in  love,  that  they  may 
happily  realize  "  how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for 
brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity."  But  if  a  dividing 
and  denunciatory  spirit  and  system  of  operation  must 
still  exist,  O  let  them  be  instrumental  to  the  furtherance 
of  the  uncorrupted  and  precious  truths  of  the  gospel  of 
thy  dear  Son. 

Letter  2,  pp.  26,  27,  Dr.  Worcester  supposes  it  to 
be  *'  vastly  important,  that  people  should  '  learn  the  dis« 
tinction  between  Trinitarianism  and  Unitarianism  ;'"  but 
that  it  is  "laboured  assiduously,"  on  the  part  of  Unita- 
rians, "  to  conceal  the  points  of  difference  between  the 
two  denominations,"  and  to  make  the  impression  that 
*'  these  points  are  few  and  of  very  little  importance." 
*'  In  opposition  to  this  system  of  concealment,"  he  ob- 
serves, "  I  have  thought  it  right  and  important  to  en- 
deavour a  developement,  and  to  lay  the  difference  be- 


62 

tv/een  iis  (Trinitarians  and  Unitarians)  open  to  the 
public  in  tlieir  true  light.  On  our  part  we  have  no 
dread  of  this  ;  no  dread  of  a  clear  and  full  develope- 
ment.  It  has  long  been  our  earnest  desire,  that  your 
sentiments  as  well  as  ours  might  be  known,  and  that 
all_  christians  and  all  people  might  well  understand  the 
points  on  Avhich  you  differ  from  us.  On  this  account 
we  devoutly  rejoice  that  the  subject  has  been  brought 
before  the  public." — These  passages  require  the  serious 
attention  of  the  christian  community  at  large,  and  par- 
ticularly the  attention  of  christian  ministers. — That  there 
is  a  ''  distinction  between  Trinitarianism  and  Unitarian- 
ism,'"  is  not  to  be  disguised.  But  whether  the  distinction 
is  so  great  as  Dr.  W.  seems  to  suppose,  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  admit.  I  really  hope  that  the  difference  between 
the  two  systems  is  ratlier  circiimstautkd,  than  radical. 
Notwithstanding  Dr.  W.  has  given  a  description  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which  seems  very  strongly  to 
imply  the  existence  of  three  distinct  Gods,  equal  in  pow~ 
er  and  glory ;  yet-  he  explicitlj'^  declares  his  belief  in 
the  existence  of  but  one  Supreme  God.  But  do  not 
Unitarians  fully  believe  in  the  existence  of  but  one  Su- 
preme God  ?  and  do  they  not  as  well  as  Dr.  W.  ascribe 
to  him  "  all  divine  attributes  ?"  To  Jesus  Christ  the 
Dr.  does  not  hesitate  to  applj^  the  name  man  as  well  as 
that  of  God.  Nor  do  Unitarians  hesitate  to  do  the 
same.  The  Dr.  believes  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God 
possessed  of  "  all  divine  attributes."  But  do  not  Unitari- 
ans believe  this  ?  Is  the  difference  then,  between  the 
Trinitarian  and  the  Unitarian  theory  essential  ?  If  so,  it  is 
indeed  "  vastly  important  that  people  should  learn  it." 
But  how  this  is  to  be  effected,  is  not  easy  to  be  deter- 
mined. It  is  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impracticable,  to 
draw  a  correct  line  of  distinction  between  the  two  theories. 
This  arises  partly  from  the  circumstance  that  the  Trinita- 
rian theory  is  subject  to  no  inconsiderable  mutations  ;  part- 
ly from  tlie  circumstance  that  Trinitarians  differ  widely  in 
opinion  anuwg  themselves  ;  and  partly  to  the  circumstance 
that  they  do  not  clearly  explain  the  words  and  phrases  they 
use  in  reference  to  their  diversified  theory.  These  things 
considered,  it  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that  a  line  of  distinc- 
tion will  soon  be  clearly  and  satisfactorily  marked  between 
Trinitarianism  and  Unitarianism.  But  if  it  be  practicable, 
most  sincerely  do  I  hope,  that  the  difficult  task  will  be  un- 
dtTtaken  by  some  one  who  is  competent  to  its  accom- 
plishment. 

If,  as  Dr.  Worcester  supposes.  Unitarians  labour  assid- 
uously "  to  conceal  the  points  of  difference"  between 
themselves  and  Trinitarians,  it  is  much  to  be  lamented. 


63 

Nor  shall  I  appear  as  their  apologist.  Concealment  in 
matters  of  a  religious  nature,  and  especially  in  those  w  hich 
are  highly  important,  I  consider  as  verj^  inconsistent  with 
that  frank  and  ingenuous  spirit  which  Christianity  as  well 
inspires,  as  inculcates.  The  children  of  light  do  not  seek 
the^  covert  of  darkness.  Liberated  from  bondage,  and 
their  "  feet  set  in  a  large  room,"  they  will  nobly  disdain 
to  do  things  "  in  a  corner."  Akhough  not  with  ostenta- 
tion, yet  with  unshrinking  intrcpidit}^  they  v\  ill,  without 
disguise,  proclaim  their  sentiments  upon  the  house  top. 
But  whether  this  be  the  character  of  Unitarians  generally, 
my  limited  acquaintance  with  them,  and  vv  ith  their  pub- 
lications, does  not  allow  me  to  decide.  Such  of  their 
publications,  however,  as  I  have  read,  have,  with  very- 
few,  if  any  exceptions,  exhibited  to  my  \\ew  very  strong 
features  of  artless  simpliciti/  and  honest  frankness.  But 
if  these  *'  tair  speeches,"  are  "  the  slight  of  men,  and  cun- 
ning craftiness  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive," 
it  is  my  earnest  hope  that  Dr.  W.  may  have  the  adi'oit- 
ness  as  well  as  disposition  to  expose  their  guile  and  the 
hidden  things  of  their  dishonesty  ;  and  "  to  lay  the  differ- 
ences between  them  and  Trinitarians  in  their  true  light." 
I  have  *'  no  dread  of  a  clear  and  full  developement"  of  its 
features.  It' is  indeed  my  wish  that  the  developement 
might  be  made,  in  a  manner  much  more  clear  and  full 
than  it  has  been  made  by  the  pen  of  Dr.  W.  Nor  is  it  less 
my  wish  that  the  Trinitarian  theory  might  be  clearly  and 
fully  developed  ;  and  that  this  developement  might  be  seen, 
and  read,  '  and  understood  by  all  men.  Such  an  event 
would  probablj"  be  the  means  of  settling  the  bewildering 
controversy  which  has  so  long,  and  so  unhappily  existed 
between  Trinitarian  and  Unitarian  writers.  But  so  long  as 
tlie  Trinitarian  theory  assumes  so  many  different  shapes,  and 
remains  veiled  in  impervious  mystery,  it  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  the  collision  of  controversy  will  strike  out 
many  sparks  of  light,  or  make  much  advance  towiirds  a 
desirable  termination.  Yet  something  may  be  done  to 
these  purposes.  Something  indeed  has  already  been 
done.  And  much  more  remains  to  be  done  to  elucidate 
the  subject,  that  inquirers  might  be  able  to  understand  it, 
and  make  up  tlieir  minds  in  relation  to  it.^  In  the  hope 
that  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  this  will  happily  be 
the  case,  I  "  devoutly  rejoice"  with  Dr.  W.  "  that  the 
subject  has  been  brought  before  the  public."  And  I  will 
add — it  is  my  hope  that  it  will  continue  before  the  public, 
until  "  people  shall  learn  the  distinction  between  Trinitari- 
anism  and  Unitarianism."  This  distinction,  I  am  persuad- 
ed, is  yet  to  be  learned  by  the  great  body  of  christians,  if 
not  by  the  great  body  of  clu-istian  ministers. — I  am  very 


64 

sorry,  my  dear  Sir,  to  make  this  remark,  as  it  seems  to 
imply  a  charge  of  criminal  inattention  and  ignorance.  But 
when  I  find  by  actual  communications  from  those  "  who 
are  set  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel,"  that  one  is  igno- 
rant that  the  "  Trinitarian  theory  admits  that  Christ's  in- 
ferior nature  or  human  soul  began  to  exist  in  the  reign  of 
Augustus  Cesar" — that  another  supposes  that  the  "  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead  are  nothing  else  than  three  car- 
dinal perfections  or  attributes  of  the  one  God,"  and  a  third, 
that  these  persons  are  only  "  three  modes  of  the  Di\'ine 
Existence" — When  I  learn  these,  and  other  things  of  like 
nature,  from  "  masters  in  Israel,"  who  are  distinguished 
for  reputed  orthodoxy,  and  for  their  influence  on  public 
opinion,!  think  it  right  and  important,  that  the  abo\e remark 
should  be  made.  Simply  to  expose  ignorance,  and  ex- 
travagant and  unfounded  speculations  in  teachers  of  re- 
ligion, is  far  from  my  design.  My  object  is  to  arouse 
their  attention,  and  to  excite  them  to  a  serious  review,  in 
the  light  of  scripture,  of  their  respecti\  e  sentiments,  and 
to  suggest  to  christians,  generally,  the  duty  and  impor- 
tance of  examining  the  question,  "  what  is  truth  ?"  for 
themselves.  If  ministers  of  the  sanctuary  have  so  little 
knowledge  of"  the  subject  before  the  public,"  it  is  hardly 
to  be  supposed  that  their  hearers  will  understand  it.  The 
fact,  I  appreliend,  is,  that  the  subject  is  but  very  little  un- 
derstood by  "  christians  and  people"  generally.  I  can- 
not, therefore,  but  view  it  important  that  the  subject  sliould 
continue  under  discussion  until  people,  generally,  shall 
obtain  distinct  ideas  of  it,  and  shall  be  able  duly  to  weigh 
the  argimients  of  writers  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other. 
But  while  it  is  my  wish  that  the  subject  might  still  i:)e 
discussed,  it  is  my  hope  that  no  one  will  enter  on  the 
discussion  without  a  competent  knowledge  of  it  ;  and 
that  no  one  who  is  thus  prepared  will  engage  in  thediflicult 
task,  unless  he  will  pursue  it  \A'ith  a  spirit  of  calmness, 
candor,  and  brotherly  love  ;  and  with  the  view  to  instruct^ 
without  producing  immoderate  excitement ;  and  to  close 
rather  than  to  widen  breaches.  Pathetic  appeals  to  the 
prejudices,  the  passions  and  the  fears  o^  vacn,  instead  of 
having  a  good  tendency,  will  be  likely  to  produce  eflfects, 
which,  by  all  reflecting  minds,  must  be  ardently  depreca- 
ted. May  God  in  mercy  to  his  people  raise  up  men 
of  this  description  in  these  "  troublous  times,"  and  aijund- 
antly  bless  and  succeed  their  endeavours  to  exhibit  the  truth 
as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

Should  the  "  suijject  before  the  public"  continue  under 
proper  discussion  until  people  shall  learn  the  distinction 
between  Trinitarianism  and  Unitarianism,  they  will  then 
be  in  a  siamtioa  to  judge  whether  the  doctrine  of  tlie 


65 

Trinity,  and  the  divinity  of  Christ,  are  to  be  received  as 
scriptural  verities,  or  to  be  rejected  as  human  inventions. 
At  present  these  doctrines  seem  to  be  considered  by  many 
as  the  foundation  of  the  gospel  system.     Thus,  if  I  under- 
stand him,  they  are  considered  by  Dr.  W.     Agreeably,  he 
asks,  Letter  2,   p.   38,   "Is   it  a  light  thing  to  reject  this 
doctrine  (the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity)  because  it  transcends 
the  limited  faculties  of  the  human  mind,  &:c." — "  If  Jesus 
Christ  is  truly  and  essentially  divine,  is  it  a  light  thing  to 
deny  his  divinity — to  refuse  to  him  all  divine  honours  ?" 
In  reply  to  the  former  of  these  queries  I  have  to  observe  in 
the  first  place,  that  I  consider  it  as  expressed  in  a  deceptive, 
and  therefore  exceptionable  manner.     The  Doctor  strongly 
insinuates  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trio.ity  is  rejected  by 
Unit^irians  because  it  transcends  the  limited  faculties  of  the 
human  mind.     But  is  this  insinuation  well  founded  ?    That 
Dr.  W.  believes  it  is,  I  would  not  question.     But  why  he 
should  believe  so,  I  know  not.     For  myself  I  can  say,  that 
I  have  never  suspected,  either  from  their  conversation  or 
written  expressions  on  the  subject,  that  Unitarians  reject 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  because  it  transcends  the  facul- 
ties of  their  minds  ;    nor   have   I   now  any  suspicion  that 
this  is  the  fact.     They  reject  it,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge, 
beer. use  they  believe  it  to  be  repugnant  both  to  reason  and 
revelation.  I  am  truly  sorry,  therefore,  thai  Dr.  W.  has  made 
the  al)Ove  representation,  as  it  appears  to  me  very  unjust, 
and  calculated  to  make  verj^  wrong  and  hurtful  impressions 
on  the  minds  of  many  of  his  readers.     Lideed  I  doubt  not 
that  the  representation  has  made,  and  deeply  made  such 
impressions,  as  ought  to  be  effaced.     And  it  is  my  hope 
that  Dr.  W.  will  be  convinced  that  he  ought  to  do  every 
thing  in  his  power  to  efface  them,  and  that  his  conviction 
will  produce  the  desired  effect. 

The  question  whether  "it  is  a  light  thing  to  reject  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinit II ■,^''  cannot  well  be  answered  until 
that  doctrine  shall  be  settled.  Many  Trinitarians  (so 
called)  if  not  the  great  body  of  tiiem  have,  in  all  ages  of  the 
christian  church,  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as 
held  by  Dr.  W.  ;  he^  of  course,  rejects  the  doctrine  as  they 
have  held  it.  Whether  this  is  a  light  thing,  the  Doctor  has 
not  expressed  his  opinion.  Nor  has  he  intelligibly  told 
us,  either  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is,  or  ti  hat  is 
implied  in  rejecting  it.  To  my  mind,  at  least,  he  has 
conveyed  no  sentiments  on  these  subjects,  which  when 
viewed  connectedly  are  intelligible.  His  statements  appear 
to  me  so  indistinct  and  ambiguous,  that  I  find  myself 
utterly  incompetent  to  decide  upon  their  meaning.  If,  by 
rejecting  the  Trinity,  he  means  a  denial  of  the  scripture 
doctrine  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  IIoli/  Spirit,  then  to  reject 


66 

the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  must  be  so  far  from  a  light 
t/mig^  that  it  involves  a  denial  of  the  gospel.  But  if  by 
rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  he  means  a  refusal  to 
iise  imscriptural  words  and  phrases  respectmg  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit^  I  do  think  it  a  light  thing  to  reject 
the  doctrine,  and  a  small  thing  to  be  judged  of  man's 
judgment  on  account  of  such  rejection.  Once  more — If, 
by  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Doctor  means 
a  denial  of  the  existence  of  three  distinct  "  beings''"'  or 
*''' Gods''''  possessed  o/' all  divine  attributes,  so  united  as  to 
constitute  one  being  or  God,  dien  a  rejection  of  the  doctrine 
must  be,  1  think,  an  indispensable  obligation. 

"  If  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  and  essentially  divine,"  as  Dr. 
Worcester  believes,  it  surely  cannot  be  a  "  light  thing  to 
deny  his  divinity  and  refuse  to  him  all  divine  honours." 
Indeed  to  refuse  him  ajii/  divine  honours  must  be  consid- 
ered, even  in  tlie  most  exalted  creature,  inexcuseable  de- 
linquency. But  if  Jesus  Christ  is  ?JOt  "  essentially  divine" 
— if  he  is  }!ot  a  "  being  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes," 
then  to  give  him  "  all  divine  honours,"  must  be  an  inva- 
sion of  the  rights  of  that  being  who  is  possessed  of  all  divine 
attributes.  Or  rather  must  it  not  be  a  denial  of  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  being?  Is  there  more  than  One 
Being  who  is  supreniely  divine?  If  not,  arid  if  Jesus 
Christ  is  this  being,  no  divine  honours  can  be  due  to  that 
being  who  is  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  he 
nuist  be,  it  should  seem,  an  imaginary  being.  But  is  this 
really  the  case  ?  Does  that  being  whom  Jesus  Christ 
acknowledged  to  be  his  God  and  Father,  to  \\hom  he 
prayed,  and  ascribed  all  divine  honours,  and  to  whom  he 
directed  us  to  do  the  same,  exist  only  in  imagination  ? 
And  instead  of  ascribing  to  hisn  ail  divine  honours,  are  we 
to  ascribe  them  to  his  son,  his  messenger — his  anointed  ? 
Is  it  a  light  thir.g,  my  dear  Sir,  thus  to  transfer  all  divine 
honours  from  "  the  one  God,  even  the  Father  .^"  But  Dr. 
W.  will  perhaps  say  that  in  giving  all  divine  honours  to 
the  Son,  no  divine  honours  are  withholden  from  the  Father. 
And  this  may  be  satisfectory  to  his  own  mind,  and  to  the 
minds  of  others.  But  it  is  far  from  being  so  to  mine.  If 
all  divine  attributes  belong  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  if  all  divine- 
honours  are  to  be  given  to  him,  how  can  any  diA'ine  attri- 
butes belong  to  the  Father,  or  how  can  any  divine  honours 
be  due  to  him,  or  to  any  other  person  or  being?  But  the 
Doctor  will  be  prepared  to  say  that  "  the  Father  possesses 
divine  attriljutes,  and  is  therefore  God ;  and  that  the  Son  pos- 
sesses divine  attributes,  and  is  therefore  God  ;"  •^a\6.there- 
fore  divine  honours  are  to  be  given  as  well  to  the  Father, 
as  to  the  Son.  Are  two  Gods,  then,  to  be  \\orshipped  ? 
This,  I  am  well  aware,   will  be  denied.    But  if  the  Father 


\  67 

is  God,  and  the  Son  is  also  God  ;  and  if  each  is  entitled  to 
divine  worship  or  honours,  I  cannot  see  why  two  Gods  are 
not  entitled  to  divine  worship  or  honours.  Sensible,  how- 
ever, that  the  Dr.  will  not  admit  this,  his  theory  becomes 
involved  in  impenetrable  darkness.  And  vain  is  my 
attempt  to  ascertain  what  he  means  by  "  denying  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  and  refusing  him  all  divine  honours." 
Yet  one  thing  is  clear.  If  "  to  us  there  is  but  one  GocU  tJie 
Father^  of  \v'hom  are  all  things,"  then  it  cannot  be  a  light 
thing  to  give  all  divine  honours  to  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ. 
Is  it  not  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  who  solemnly 
declares,  "  I  am  the  Lord,  that  is  my  name  ;  and  my  glory 
will  I  jiot  give  to  another  ?"  Is  he  not  "  the  only  wise  God, 
imto  whom"  alone  is  to  be  ascribed  supreme  "  honour  and 
glory  ?"  Will  he  then  hold  us  guiltless,  if  instead  of 
*'  giving  unto  him  the  honour  due  to  his  name,"  we  have 
the  temerity  to  give  it  to  another  ? 

If,  in  attending  to  this  subject,  we  shall  find  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  essentially  divine,  or  equal  in  power  and 
glory  to  his  Father,  we  not  only  may  with  propriety  deny 
to  him  supreme  divinity  ;  but  it  must  be  our  indispensable 
duty  to  do  so.  Nor  less  indispensable  must  be  our  obli- 
gation to  refuse  to  him  the  highest  di\'ine  honours.  This, 
it  is  presumed,  you  will  readilj'^  admit.  I  think  you  will 
admit  also  that  in  order  to  speak  of  Jesus  Christ  in  a  just 
and  correct  manner, ^  we  must  speak  of  him  as  he  spake  of 
himself,  and  as  he  is  spoken  of  by  inspired  w  riters.  And 
will  you  not  admit  again,  that  we  ought  to  understand  the 
expressions  which  he,  and  inspired  writers  used  in  reference 
to  himself,  accordmg  to  their  most  natural  and  obvious 
meaning?  These  things  admitted,  let  us  come  to  the 
subject  of  Christ's  character,  if  possible,  with  our  minds 
fi-ee  from  prejudice,  and  fully  open  to  conviction.  If  I 
should  refer  you  to  several  passages  of  scripture  which 
have  already  come  under  review,  I  shall  not  think  an 
apology  necessary,  as  it  is  my  object  in  this  place  to  exhibit 
in  a  connected  view  such  things  as  seem  inconsistent  with 
the  suppositions  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  equal  to  the 
Father,  and  equally  entitled  to  divine  worship  or  honours. 

"  There  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus.^''  Here  the  o/ze  God,  and  the 
072^  Mediator  seem  to  be  so  contrasted  as  not  to  admit  the 
supposition  that  they  are  one  God,  or  that  a  strict  equalitj' 
exists  between  them.  As  the  one  God  is  represented  as 
entirely  distinct  from  the  one  Mediator,  does  it  not  seem 
necessary  to  infer  that  this  Mediator  neither  is,  nor  can  be 
the  one  God,  nor  a  constituent  part  of  the  one  God,  with 
whom  he  mediates  in  behalf  of  men  ? 


68 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  "  Son  of  God.y  But  does  Son  imply 
strict  equality,  and  co-existence  from  eternity  with  the 
Father,  n  hose  Son  he  is  ?  Is  he  not  called  the  Son  of 
God,  on  account  of  the  peculiar  complacency  or  love  of 
the  Father  towards  him  ? — on  account  of  his  miraculous 
conception  ? — on  recount  of  his  having  been  sanctified  and 
set  apart  by  the  Father  to  the  distinguished  office,  for  the 
execution  of  \Ahich  he  was  sent  into  the  world  ? — on  ac- 
count o{  his  having  been  anointed  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  his  tcllovvs  ? — on  account  of  his  resurrection  from 
the  dead  by  the  power  of  God  ? — on  account  of  his  having 
been  highly  exalted,  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ? — and 
on  account  oUiis  having  been  appointed  heir  of  all  things^ 
— If  on  these  accounts  Christ  is  to  be  considered  eminently 
the  Son  oj  God,  does  that  appellation  prove,  or  even  sug- 
gest the  supposition,  that  he  is  either  the  Supreme  God^  or 
equal  to  the  supreme  God  ? 

Jesus  Christ  speaks  of  himself  as  a?i  ambassador  whom 
his  Father  sent  into  the  world.  But  is  an  ambassador  the 
same  as  his  sovereign,  or  equal  to  him  in  dignity  ?  Does 
not  sending  imply  a  sender  and  a  sent  ?  But  does  not  the 
act  or  power  of  sending  imply  superiority  in  him  who  sends, 
over  him  who  is  sent  by  him  ? 

Jesus  Christ,  has  expressly  assured  us  that  he  came 
down  from  heaven  Jiot  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
him  that  sent  him.  Does  not  this  declaration  teach  us  that 
Christ  possessed  a  will  distinct  from  that  of  his  Father  ? 
How  then  could  he  be  one  God  \^dth  his  Father  ?  Can 
one  God  be  supposed  to  possess  two  distinct  numerical 
wills  ?  Besides,  if  Jesus  Christ  did  not  do  his  own  will, 
nor  "  please  himself,"  but  always  did  the  will  of  his  Father, 
and  the  things  which  were  pleasing  to  him,  does  it  not 
seem  that  he  must  be  inferior  to,  as  well  as  distinct  from 
the  Father  ? 

Jesus  Christ,  instead  of  ascribing  the  miracles  which  he 
performed  to  his  own  independent  power,  ascribes  them  to 
the  operation  of  his  Father,  the  Spirit  of  his  Father,  or 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  the  Father  in  him  that  did  the 
works.  It  was  by  the  Spirit  or  finger  of  God  that  he  cast 
out  demons.  Now  if  Jesus  Christ  did  not  work  mh'acles 
by  his  own  pozver,  but  by  power  derived  from  the  Father, 
or  if  it  were  the  Father  in  him  vyho  wrought  them,  can  it 
reasonably  be  supposed  that  he  is  either  one  God  with  the 
Father,  or  equal  to  the  Father  ? 

The  doctrines  which  Christ  taught  he  has  told  us  xvere 
not  his  own,  but  his  Father^  who  sent  him.  Here  I  would 
ask — If  Jesus  Christ  is  one  God  with  his  Father,  or  equal 
to  his  Father,  could  he  with  any  propriety  have  said  that  tlie 
doctrines  which  he  taught  were  not  his,  or  that  he  was  not 


69 

the  original  author  of  them  ?  Were  he  the  same  with,  or 
equal  to  his  Father,  must  not  the  doctrines  which  he  taught 
have  been  as  truly  his,  as  his  Father's  ? 

Jesus  Christ  has  taught  us  to  believe  that  he  received 
commands  from  his  Father^  and  that  he  unreservedly 
obeyed  them.  But  if  he  were  one  God  with  his  Father, 
must  he  not  have  received  commands  as  well  from  himself 
as  from  his  Father  ?  And  must  he  not  have  obeyed  himself 
as  well  as  his  Father  ?  Are  these  incongruities  to  be  re- 
ceived as  sober,  and  scriptural,  and  fundamental  truths  ? 

Does  not  prayer  imply  inferiority  and  dependence  in  the 
person  praying^  wHh  respect  to  the  person  to  whom  the 
prayer  is  addressed^  ^wi  Jesus  Christ  habitually  prayed 
to  his  Father^  expressing  dependence  on  him  and  obligation 
to  him,  and  supplicating  his  aid  and  support.  How  is 
this  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  he  is  an  independ- 
ent being,  or  equal  to  his  Father  ? 

Jesus  Christ  is  styled  in  scripture  the  image  of  God,  of 
the  invisible  God.  Can  he  then  be  the  Supreme  and  invis- 
ible God  c*  As  an  image  cannot  be  the  image  of  itself,  so 
it  seems  impossible  that  Jesus  Chi'ist  should  be  the  image  of 
God,  and  yet  that  very  God  of  whom  he  is  the  image,  or  a 
component  part  of  him.  The  supposition  that  the  image 
of  God  is  God  Imnself  or  the  essence  of  God,  seems  to  me 
too  extravagant  to  admit  of  sober  belief.  And  the  supposi- 
tion that  if  Jesus  Christ  were  not  "  very  God,"  he  would 
be  represented  as  the  image  of  the  ijnage  of  God,  is  too 
preposterous  to  require  a  serious  refutation.  "  It  is  pitiful 
— wondrous  pitiful"  that  an  enlightened  christian  assembly 
should  hear  from  the  pulpit,  and  with  approbation,  a  re- 
mark which  so  strikingly  resembles  "  the  umbrageous 
shadow  of  a  shade. ' ' 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  apostle  and  high  priest  of  our  profes- 
sion, who  was  faithful  to  him  that  afjpointed  him.  Here  it 
is  pertinent  to  observe  that  it  is  the  office  of  a  priest  to  min- 
ister in  holy  things,  and  to  transact  for  men  with  God — to 
intercede  for  them,  &c.  Christ  as  priest,  as  high  priest, 
came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister.  To  this 
office  he  was  appointed  by  his  Father,  to  whom  he  was 
faithful  in  the  discharge  of  it.  But  are  any  of  these  things 
incident  to  the  Supreme  God?  Is  the  Supreme  God  a 
priest  to  any  being  ?  Does  he  perform  a  ministry,  or  make 
intercession  to  any  being  in  behalf  of  others  ?  Could 
he  have  been  appointed  to  the  office  of  high  priest  by  any 
other  being,  or  have  been  obedient  to  any  other  being, 
in  the  discharge  of  that  office?  How  then  can  Jesus 
Christ  be  the  Supreme  God,  or  equal  to,  or  one  \y\X\\  the 
Supreme  God  ? 


70 

Jesus  Christ,  while  on  earth,  suff'ered,  bei?ig  te?npted.  He 
ivas  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  xve  are.  He  was  griev- 
ousbj  tempted  of  the  devH,  But  did  these  things  ever 
h.ippen  to  the  blessf^d  God  *?  Is  it  not  indeed  impossible 
that  he  should  be  subject  to  temptation,  from  any  influence, 
Tigency,  or  circumstaiice  whatever,  either  within  or  without 
himself?  That  this  is  impossible  we  have  the  unequivocal 
testimony  of  an  inspired  apostle.  "  God  cannot  be  tempted 
xmth  evil.''''    Can  Christ  then  in  the  highest  sense  be  God  ? 

The  oiie  God  is  self  existent,  or  necessai*ily  existent. 
He  neidicr  produced  himself;  nor  was  he  produced  by  any 
being  or  cause  extraneous  to  himself.  Indeed  no  being  or 
cause  existed  previously  to  his  existence.  But  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  first  horn  of  every  creature^  and  the  beginnbig  of  the 
c?'eation  of  God.  Was  there  not  a  time  then  v.  hen  he  did, 
■not  exist  ?  And  must  he  not  have  derived  his  existence 
froni  another — from  God,  his  Father  ?  Is  it  then  to  be 
admitted  that  he  is  self-existent  and  independent  ? 

The  One  God  can  never  desert  or  forsake  himself,  nor, 
if  the  expression  be  allowable,  any  part  of  himself.  This, 
in  no  sense,  can  be  the  case.  But  he  can,  in  a  variety  of 
senses,  desert  or  forsake  other  beings.  And  this  he  some- 
times docs.  He  even  deserted  or  forsook  Jesus  Christ,  his 
beloved  Son,  when  he  was  sufliering  on  the  cross.  This 
occasioned  him  to  exclaim,  "71/^  God/  nuj  God /  rvhy 
hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?"  Whom,  Sir,  did  Christ  address 
when  he  ut*^^ered  this  pathetic  exclamation  or  prayer  ?  Did 
he  address  himself ,  or  pray  to  himself?  As  there  is  but 
one  God  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,  must  not  Christ 
have  directed  this  address  to  himself,  if  these  attributes 
were  his  ?  But  in  this  there  is  too  great  an  incongruity 
for  your  belief.  Did  he  then  address  his  Father — and  his 
Father  exclusively  ?  If  so,  he  did  not  address  a  Triune 
God.  But  should  it  be  said  that  the  term  Father  implies 
a  Trinity  in  Unity ^  I  would  ask,  by  what  authority  is  this 
said  ?  Should  it  however  be  admitted,  must  it  not  also  be 
admitted  that  Christ  prayed  to  himself  as  well  as  to  his 
Father,  for  Christ  is  included  in  the  Trinitarian  God-head. 
I  have  further  to  ask — whether  Christ,  as  to  his  supposed 
divine  nature,  had  forsaken  his  human  nature  when  the 
praj^er  under  consideration  was  made  ?  This,  I  should 
think,  must  have  been  the  case,  if  the  "  Father  alone  is  not 
the  Supreme  God,"  or  if  the  supposed  divine  nature  of 
Christ  is  essential  to  the  being  or  existence  of  the  Supreme 
God.  But  how  could  the  supposed  divine  nature  of 
Christ  have  forsaken  his  human  nature,  if  it  were  "  insep- 
arably united  to  it,"  or  so  united  to  it,  that  both  constituted 
but  one  person  ?  On  the  supposition,  however,  that  his 
divine  nature  could  forsake  or  separate  itself  from  his  hu- 


71 

man  nature,  and  actually  did  so,  what  became  of  the  Trin- 
itarian person  of  Christ,  whose  essential  and  peculiar 
character  it  was  to  consist  of  two  natures,  divine  and 
human  ?  If  his  divine  nature  forsook  or  left  his  human 
nature,  his  person  must  have  been  destroyed,  or,  if  not 
destroyed,  a  mere  mjimtmmal  part  of  it  only  could  have 
remained.  But  whither  will  these  inquiries  lead  us  ?  or 
where  will  they  end  ?  I  stop — and  only  observe,  that  in 
whatever  point  of  light  the  subject  is  viewed,  it  seems 
inculpable  of  aifording  any  satisfactory  evidence  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  God  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word. 

If  Jesus  Christ  were  in  the  highest  sense  God,  must  not 
all  the  things  and  events  relating  to  his  kingdom  be  under 
his  own  control,  and  at  his  own  disposal  ?  But  is  this  in- 
deed the  case  ?  Ought  we  not  to  be  satisfied  with  his  own 
decision  upon  the  subject  ?  "  To  sH  on  my  ri'^ht  handy 
and  on  imj  left^  is  not  mine  to  give  ;  but  it  shall  be  given 
to  them^  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father.^'*  As 
Christ  had  not  the  disposal  of  the  highest  places  in  his 
kingdom,  must  not  his  authority  in  his  kingdom  have 
been  subordinate  to  or  dependent  on  that  of  his  Father  ? 
Besides,  how  could  the  kingdom  have  been  independ- 
ently his  own  ?  Is  he  then  to  be  considered  as  God  su- 
preme ? 

It  is  repeatedly  and  unequivocally  asserted  in  scripture, 
that  God  7'alsed  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.  The  Scrip- 
ture also  assures  us  that  he  xvas  quickened  by  the  Spirit. 
But  is  this  consistent  with  tlie  supposition  that  he  is  the 
Lord  God  omnipotent  ?  Can  it  with  any  propriety  be  said 
of  the  Omnipotent  Jehovah^  with  whom  there  is  no  varia- 
bleness, nor  shadow  of  change,  that  he  has  been  dead  and 
buried,  and  that  he  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  power 
of  God,  and  quickened  by  the  Spirit  ?  Jesus  Christ  has  in- 
deed said,  "■  No  man  takedi  my  life  from  me,  but  I  lay  it 
doMU  of  myself  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  agaiii."  13ut  we  are  not  to  be  unmindful 
that  he  immediately  adds,  "  This  commandment  have  1 
received  of  jny  Father.^''  I  have  received  asswance  from 
my  Father  of  my  resurrection  from  the  dead — tliat  he  will 
raise  me  before  my  flesh  shall  see  corruption.  This  seems 
to  me  the  most  obvious  and  natural  meaning  of  Christ's 
declaration.  But  however  this  may  be,  his  declaration 
seems  incp.pable  of  anj^  construction  which  does  not  im- 
ply his  dependence  on  his  Father.  Ho\v  then  can  it  rea- 
sonably be  supposed  that  he  is  the  same  God  with  his 
Father,  or  equal  to  his  Father  ?  and  especially  when  it  is 
considered  that  the  Scripture  assures  us  that  Jesus  Christ 
has  a  God,  and  a  Head,  and  that  he  is  the  possession  or 
property  of  his  God,  and  head  ? 


12 

Jesus  Christ  has  assured  us  that  7ione,  in  the  highest 
sense,  is  good  but  God  his  Father — that  his  Father  knows 
what  neither  hhnself],  nor  any  other  hehig  knows — that  hs 
Father  is  greater  than  himself;  and  at  the  consummation 
of  all  things,  im  inspired  apostle  assures  us,  that  Christ  will 
deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God  even  the  Father^  and  that  he 
himself  wdl  be  subject  unto  him. 

What,  Sir,  shall  we  say  to  these  tilings  ?  Do  they  not 
seem  clearly  to  teach  us  that  Jesus  Christ  is  neither  the 
Supreme  God,  nor  eqtial  to  the  Supreme  God  ?  Does  it 
not  seem  palpably  incongruous  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Mediator  between  the  One  God  and  man,  and  yet 
that  he  himself  is  that  one  God  ?  that  he  is  the  Son  of 
God,  and  yet  God  himself  ?  that  he  is  an  ambassador 
from  God,  and  yet  an  ambassador  from  himself  ?  that  he 
came  into  the  Avorld  not  to  do  his  oxvn  will,  but  the  W'ill  of 
him  that  sent  him,  and  yet  that  he  did  come  into  the 
\vorld  to  do  his  own  will  ?  that  of  his  oxvn  self  he  could 
do  nothmg,  and  yet  that  whatever  he  did,  was  done  by  his 
own  independent  poxver  ?  that  the  doctrines  which  he 
taught  w  ere  }7ot  his  own,  and  yet  that  they  were  his  ow7i — 
originated  by  himself  ?  that  he  received  commands  from 
his  Father,  and  yet  that  he  received  them  from  himself  ? 
that  he  obeyed  his  Father's  commands,  and  yet  in  doing 
this,  that  he  obeyed  his  own  commands  ?  that  he  habitually 
prayed  to  his  Father,  and  yet,  that  in  doing  so,  he  habitu- 
ally prayed  to  himself  ?  that  he  is  the  image  of  God,  and 
yet  that  very  God  whose  image  he  bears  ?  that  as  an  apostle 
and  high  priest  he  was  faithful  to  God  who  appointed  him, 
and  yet  that  he  xvas  appointed  hy,  2i\\^  faithful  to  himself^ 
that  God  cannot  be  tempted  wdth  evil,  yet  that  Christ  is 
God,  notwithstanding  he  was  tempted  of  the  devil,  and 
was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are  ?  that  Christ  was 
the  first  born  of  every  creature,  and  yet  that  he  is  self- 
existent  ?  that  his  beijig  forsaken  by  his  God,  implies  that 
he  forsook  himself  ?  that  he  had  7iot  the  disposal  of  the 
highest  places  in  his  kingdom,  and  yet  that  he  had  the 
disposal  of  them  ?  that  God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and 
that  he  was  quickened  by  the  Spirit,  and  yet  that  he  rais- 
ed and  quickened  himself^  that  no  one  in  the  highest 
sense  is  good  but  God  only,  and  yet  that  Christ,  who  made 
this  declaration  of  his  Father,  is  good  in  the  highest  sense  ? 
that  he  did  7iot  know  what  his  Father  knew,  and  yet  that 
he  did  know  all  that  was  known  by  his  Father  ?  that  his 
Father  is  greater  than  himself,  and  yet  that  he  is  as  great 
as  his  Father  ?  that  he  will  hereafter  give  up  hs  kingdojn 
to  his  Father,  and  be  subject  to  his  Father,  and  yet  that 
he  is  Supreme  King  and  will  always  remain  so,  and  be  in 
subjection  to  none  / 


73 

Whether  these  contradictions  are  real  or  only  seeming^ 
you,  Sir,  must  judge  for  yourself.  But  I  am  constrained 
to  say  they  have  so  much  the  appearance  of  real  contradic- 
tions, that,  until  I  shall  see  them  satis tlictorily  reconciled, 
I  shall  be  afraid  to  acknowledge  the  supreme  divinity  of 
Christ,  and  to  "  give  him  all  divine  honours."  Nor  can 
I  think  it  "  a  light  thing/'  to  give  all  divine  honours  to 
Christ  as  a  "  being"  possessed  of  all  divine  ati:ributes, 
when  I  find  from  the  highest  authority  that  the  God  and 
Father  of  Christ  is  the  one  god,  who  seem i  evident- 
ly to  claim,  as  his  exclusive  due,  all  suprcm'-  honour  or 
worship,  from  all  intelligent  beings.  If  you.  Sir,  are  in  the 
habit  of  giving  supreme  honour  or  worship  to  two  or 
more  distinct  persons  or  beings,  permit  me  with  much 
solemnity  and  deep  concern  to  ask,  whether  you  are  un- 
der no  apprehension  that  you  worship  two  or  more  dis- 
tinct Gods  ?  Will  you  say  that  you  worship  but  one  God 
*'  consisting  of  three  distinct  persons  equal  in  po^ver  and 
glory  ?"  But  what,  Sir,  is  the  distinction,  except  only  in 
name,  between  three  such  persons,  and  three  Gods  ?  For 
my  own  part  I  can  see  none  other  than  a  nominal  distinc- 
tion ;  and  you  will  excuse  my  freedom,  if  I  say,  that  I  am 
strongly  apprehensive  that  you  neither  can,  nor  pretend 
clearly  to  mark  the  distinction.  Ought  you  not  then  to 
fear  that  you  worship  you  know  not  what,  and  especially 
when  you  consider  that  you  have  neither  precept  nor 
example  for  the  worship  of  a  Triune  God  in  any  part  of 
the  Bible  ?  I  pray  you  very  seriously  to  consider,  and 
re- consider  this  great  and  interesting  subject.  May  the 
Fountain  of  all  light  be  pleased  more  fully  to  enlighten  our 
understandings,  that  we  may  more  clearly  see  what  is  truth 
in  relation  to  it. 

I  am  not  unaware,  Sir,  it  will  be  said,  that  the  passages 
of  scripture  above  stated,  which  seem  to  prove  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  inferior  to,  and  dependent  on  his  Father,  refer  to 
his  supposed  lowest  character,  or  human  nature,  in  distinc- 
tion irom  his  supposed  highest  character,  or  divine  nature. 
But  if  this  complex  character  of  Christ  be  merely  imagin- 
ary,  must  not  his  real  character  be  either  wholly  divine,  or 
wholly  human  ?    This,  I  presume,  you  will  readily  admit. 

Is  it,  then,  a  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  person  consisti'^.g 
of  divinity  and  humanity,  or  that  he  is  Go(/and  man  in  one 
numerical  person  ?  I  do  think.  Sir,  that  this  very  strange 
and  mysterious  doctrine  ought  not  to  be  received  as  ti^ue, 
without  clear  and  irresistible  evidence.  But  where  is 
this  evidence  to  be  found  ?  If  any  where,  you  will  agree 
with  me  in  ""he  belief,  that  it  is  to  be  found  m  the  Bible. 
But  does  the  Bible  teach  us  that  Jesus  Christ  possessed  a 
soul  and  bodv  like  your's  and  mine,  and  that  to  this  man 

K 


74 

a  second  person  of  a  Trinity  was  united,  and  so  united 
that  both  became  one  person  ?  Or  that  two  souls,  or  dis- 
tinct spiritual  existences,  infinitelj'  disproportioned  to,  and 
different  from  each  other,  became  so  united  to  each  other, 
and  to  a  human  body,  as  to  constitute  but  one  individual 
person  or  being  !  If  the  Bible  really  does  teach  this  doc- 
trine, most  devoutly  do  I  wish  that  I  might  find  it  in  that 
blessed  book.  In  examining  the  scripture,  I  find  that  a  man, 
consisting  of  a  body  and  a  soul,  or  intelligent  thinking  prin- 
ciple, is  a  real  and  complete  person,  but  I  do  not  find  that 
the  scripture  teaches  that  two  souls  or  intelligent  principles, 
the  one  divine,  the  other  human,  and  one  body,  are  so  united 
together  as  to  make  one  person.  I  am,  therefore,  afraid  to 
admit  such  a  heterogeneous  mixture  or  union  as  a  doctrine 
of  revelation.  Should  I  admit  that  the  person  of  Christ  is 
both  God  and  man,  must  I  not  admit  also  that  this  same 
person  is  self-existent,  independent,  omnipotent,  omnis- 
cient, omnipresent,  &c.  ?  But  if  I  admit  this  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  must  I  not  admit,  also,  that  his  humanity  which 
is  essential  to  his  person,  is  also  self-existent,  independent, 
&c.  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if  I  admit  that  the  person  of 
Christ  was  derived,  or  produced  and  dependent,  and  that  it 
sufered,  died,  &c.  must  I  not  admit  that  his  divinity  was 
derived  or  produced,  and  that  it  suffered,  died,  ^c.  ?  Is 
not  ins  divinity  a  part,  and  infinitely  the  greatest  part  cAhis 
person  ?  How  then  can  these  things,  or  any  thing,  be  said 
of  his  person,^  and  not  of  his  divinity  ?  But  if  none  of  these 
things  can  with  propriety  be  said  of  Christ's  person,  how 
can  he  with  propriety  be  considered  as  possessing  personal 
existence  ?  Surely  if  Jesus  Christ  is  but  one  person,  or 
being,  consisting  both  of  divinity  and  humanity,  and  if 
both  tliese  natures  are  essential  to  his  person,  then  this  one 
a?id  ihe  same  person,  must  be,  I  should  think,  both  self 
existent  and  derived;  independent  and  dependent;  un- 
changeable, and  yet  changeable,  unless  it  be  merely  a  nomi- 
nal or  figurative  person.  Further,  if  I  admit  that  Jesus 
Christ  possesses  the  complex  character  which  Trinitarians 
ascribe  to  him,  must  I  not  admit,  also,  that  his  person 
includes  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  ?  According  to  the 
Trinitarian  theory,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  con- 
stitute one  God,  and  have  the  same  numerical  essence, 
from  which  neither  of  the  persons  can  be  separated  ;  how 
then  could  either  of  them  be  united  to,  and  become  one 
person  with  a  man,  without  involving  the  others  in  the 
same  union  ?  But  shall  we  say,  or  believe  that  three  divine 
persons  became  so  united  to  a  man  as  to  constitute  but 
ox\t  person  ?  In  pursuing  this  theory  I  find  myself  in 
''  intricate  mazes  lost."  Nor  can  I  descry  a  plain  path  till 
I  return  to  "  the  high  way"  of  revelation,  where  I  find,  or 


75 

seem  to  find  Christ  described,  as  one  single  person,  agent, 
or  being,  possessed  of  one  single  mind,  intelligence,  and 
will,  always  acting  by  the  authoritj^,  and  in  perfect  obedi- 
ence to  the  will  of  his  Father.  He  is  indeed  described  as 
possessed  of  his  Father's  fulness,  or  the  communication  of 
the  Spirit  without  measure,  by  which  hew'as  enabled  to 
discharge  his  high  commission.  But  this  circumstance, 
so  far  from  proving  his  essential  divinity  and  independence, 
seems  very  strongly  to  support  the  supposition  that  he  is  a 
derived  and  dependent  being  ;  for  a  self-existent  and  inde- 
pendent being  can  neither  need  nor  be  susceptible  of  the 
fulness  of  any  other  being. 

Now,  Sir,  in  the  view  of  these  things  permit  me  to 
ask — What  think  you  of  Christ  ?  That  he  is  truly 
God,  and  truly  man  in  one  person  ?  Do  j^ou  find  satis- 
factory evidence  that  this  is  the  fact?  Is  the  supposed 
fact  capable  of  proof?  Is  it  intelligible  ?  Or  does  it  ap- 
pear to  be  a  doctrine  of  revelation  ?  If  not,  what  is  the 
basis — what  the  support  of  the  Trinitarian  theory  ?  Let 
me  eai'nestly  entreat  you  very  seriously  to  consider  these 
things  again  and  again — to  weigh  them  in  the  balance 
of  reason,  and  especially  in  the  "even  balance"  of  rev- 
elation, lest  without  a  warrant  you  should  "  give  all  divine 
honours  to  Christ,"  and  rob  the  one  God  "  in  the  offerings" 
to  which  he  alone  has  a  just  and  sovereign  claim.  This 
surely  cannot  be  "  a  light  thing."  Let  not  this  sin  be  laid 
to  our  charge. 

I  now  proceed  to  a  brief  examination  of  Dr.  Worcester's 
view  of 

THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

Letter  1,  p.  19,  The  Doctor  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  possessing  "  personal  divinity."^  And  in  Letter  3,  p. 
25,  He  says,  "  The  Holy  Spirit,  in  essential,  inseparable 
union  with  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  he  in  them  and  they 
in  him,  is  the  living,  true,  and  supreme  God."  In  Letter 
2,  p.  2>6^  he  says,  "  Orthodox  christians  believe  that  He 
(the  Holy  Spirit)  like  die  Father  and  the  Son,  is  truly  and 
essentially  divine,  and  that  all  which  is  truly  holy  and  vir- 
tuous in  any  of  mankind  is  to  be  ascribed  to  his  sovereign 
and  gracious  agency."  Page  22,  "  He  knows  the  things  of 
God,  as  the  spirit  of  a  man^  knows  what  is  in  the  rnan,  that 
is,  by  intuition,  by  consciousness.  As  the  "  spirit  of  a 
man  is  conscious  to  all  that  is  in  him-— knows  intuitively 
his  understanding,  and  will,  and  affections,  his  thoughts, 
volitions,  and  feelings  ;  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  conscious  to 
all  that  is  in  God."  "  They  are  essentially  equal,  each  to 
the  other ;  for  all  that  is  in  the  Father,  is  in  the  Holy 
Spirit."  Several  other  similar  observations  concerning 
the  Holy  Spirit  occur  in  the  Doctgr's  Letters.    But  as 


76 

they  would  probably  afford  no  additional  light  to  the  sub- 
ject, it  were  needless  purticuLirly  to  notice  them.  On  the 
passages  quoted,  my  remarks  will  be  brief;  the  principal 
object  of  which  ^^  ill  be  to  ascertain  whether  the  Holy 
Spirit  possesses  p€7'sonal  existence  hi  distinction  from  the 
one  God.,  the  Father.  This  Dr.  W.  supposes,  and  not 
only  this,  but  that  the  person  of  ihe  Spirit  is  like  that  of  the 
Father  essentially  divine,  and  essentmlly  equal  to  the  Fath- 
er. And  by  person  we  have  seen  that  the  Doctor  means  "in- 
telligent agent,"  "  being,"  "  God,"  who  "  possesses  all 
divine  attributes."  But  is  all  this  to  be  admitted  with 
respect  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  If  so,  I  see  not  but  he  must 
be  separately  and  independently  "  the  living,  true  and 
Supreme  God."  If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  person, 
agent,  being,  or  God,  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,  can 
any  additional  attribute  or  circiimslance  be  necessary  to 
constitute  him  alojie  the  Supreme  and  independent  Jeho- 
vah ?  Is  not  the  one  Supreme  and  independent  Jehovah  a 
person,  an  intelligent  agent,  a  being  a.id  God  possessed  of 
all  divine  attributes  ?  But  is  he  possessed  of  more  than 
these  ?  As  nothing  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  one  Supreme 
God,  which  Dr.  W,  does  not  ascribe  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  Holy  Spirit  alone,  on  the  Doctor's  principles,  must,  so 
far  as  I  can  see,  be  the  one  Supreme  God.  Nor  shall  I 
undertake  to  prove  that  this  is  not  the  case.  So  far  from  it, 
that  I  am  not  disposed  to  controvert  the  truth  of  the  hy- 
pothesiso  I  have  indeed  already  admitted  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  Supreme  God.  But  I  am  not  prepared  to 
admit  that  he  is  a  person,  agent,  being  or  God,  distinct 
from  the  one  God  even  the  Father ;  or  that  "  all  which  is 
truly  holy  and  virtuous  in  any  of  mankind  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  him"  as  a  distinct  agent  from  God  the  Father  ;  for  it  has 
already  been  shewn  that  God  the  Father  is  the  great  efficient 
of  all  that  is  truly  holy  and  virtuous  in  man.  Nor  am  I 
prepared  to  admit  that  Holy  Spirit  is  always  expressive  of 
personal  existence.  The  terms,  it  appears  to  me,  are 
sometimes  used  to  express  the  poiver,  and  other  particular 
attributes  and  operations  or  injluences  of  God  ;  and  that 
they  are  sometimes  to  be  considered  as  strictly  equivalent 
to  God  himself.  Reasons  for  this  my  belief  will  presently 
be  stated.  If  it  should  be  admitted  that  the  Spirit,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Holy  Ghost,  possesses  a  distinct  per- 
sonal existence,  must  it  not  also  be  admitted  that  he  is 
infe't  ior  both  to  the  Father  and  the  Son  ?  The  Holj^  Spirit 
is  described  as  the  Comforter  whom  the  Father  is  to  send, 
in  consequence  of  the  prayers  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  also 
clescribed  as  sent  by  the  Father  ;  as  not  speaking  of  himself  ^ 
and  as  spe;iking  whatsoever  he  sfwuld  hear.  He  (the  Holy 
3pirit)  said  our  Saviour,   shall  receive  of  mine — take  of 


mine^  and  shall  shew  it  unto  you,  my  disciples.  But  arc 
these  representations,  my  dear  Sir,  consistent  with  the 
supposition  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  person  equal  to 
God  the  Father  ?  If  this  were  indeed  the  case,  can  any 
good  reason  be  assigned  why  Christ  should  not  have 
directly  prayed  to  him  to  come  and  assist  his  disciples, 
instead  of  praying  to  the  Father  to  send  him  ?  Besides,  if 
he  w  ere  a  person  equal  to  the  Father,  would  it  be  proper  to 
represent  him  as  being  se?it  by  the  Father  ?  Further,  if 
the  Holy  Spirit  ^vere  a  person  equal  to  God,  how  is  it  to  be 
accounted  for  that  instead  of  speaking  of  himself^  from  his 
own  independent  knowledge,  he  should  be  instructed  what 
to  speak  ?  Or  how  is  it  to  be  conceived  that  he  should 
receive  or  take  from  another^  if  he  were  a  person  equal  to 
God,  possessed  of  infinite  and  independent  fulness  ?  Can 
any  ot  these  things  be  said,  with  propriety,  of  the  Supreme 
and  independent  God  ?  But  notwithstanding  in  these,  and 
in  some  other  passages,  the  Holy  Spirit  seems  to  be  repre- 
sented as  a  person  distinct  from,  yet  unequal  to  God,  I  am 
far  from  being  satisfied  that  distinct  personal  existence  is 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  fi^urQ  prosopopoeia y 
by  which  a  change  of  things  to  persons  is  expressed,  often 
occurs  in  scripture.  JFisdom,  charity ^  sin  and  death j^x^ 
here  represented  under  personal  characters,  and  a  variety 
of  actions  are  ascribed  to  them.  Indeed  almost  everj'^  thing 
in  scripture  is  personified,  or  represented  as  possessing 
personal  character.  Why  then  should  it  be  thought 
incredible  thai  a  divine  attribute  or  any  influence  or  opera- 
tion of  God,  should  in  like  manner  be  personified  ?  Who 
indeed  can  reasonably  deny  that  this  is  really  the  case  ? 
Are  we  not  in  the  habit,  in  speaking  of  the  providence  of 
God,  to  represent  it  as  a  person?  We  say  that  it  is  the 
will  of  providence  that  particular  events  take  place,  or  do 
not  take  place  ;  that  \ve  hear  the  voice  of  providence,  and 
that  providence  rules  the  affairs  of  men,  &c.  But  we 
mean  nothing  more  by  these  expressions  than  the  Divine 
Government  and  Superintendency  of  human  aflfaii^s.  Now 
the  Spirit  or  breath  of  God,  in  the  original  acceptation  of 
the  word,  no  more  expresses  personal  existence  distinct 
from  that  of  the  existence  of  God  himself,  than  the  word 
providence  expresses  it. 

That  Spirit  of  God  imports  divine  power,  influence  or 
operation,  instead  of  a  person  distinct  from  God,  appears 
to  me  extremely  probable  from  the  considerations,  that  in 
many  places  of  scripture  this  same  Spirit  is  represented 
as  having  been  poured  out^  shed  forth^  distributed^  and 
as  given  by  measure  and  not  by  measure — or  in  various 
degrees — that  persons  were  baptized^  anointed  and  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  tliat  although  God  pours  out 


78 

the  Spirit,  the  residue  remains  with  him.  1  know  not  how 
to  reconcile  these  representations  with  the  supposition 
tliut  the  Spirit  of  God  is  a  person  distinct  from  God 
himsell".  And  when  in  addition  to  these  things,  I 
consider  that  no  expressions  of  mutual  love  be- 
tween God  and  his  Spirit  occur  in  the  scriptures — that 
the  Spirit  is  never  represented  as  an  object  of  prayer  or 
doxology,  and  that  Spirit  of  God^  2X\^  power  of  God  sue 
eqiii-valent  expressions,  I  am  afraid  to  admit  that  the  Spir- 
it of  God  is  a  person  distinct  from  God.  I  think  it  how- 
ever highly  probable  that  Spirit  of  God  sometimes  denotes 
the  very  person  of  God  himself,  particularly  in  the  follow- 
ing passages  ;  "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  t/ii/  Spirit  ?  or 
whither  shall  I  flee  from  thi/  presence  ?  If  I  ascend  up 
into  heaven,  thou  art  there,"  &c.  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  8.  "  For 
what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of 
a  man  which  is  in  him  ?  even  so  the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God."  1  Cor.  ii.  11. 
The  terms  thy  Spirit^  thy  presence^  and  thou^  seem  evi- 
dently to  designate  the  person  of  the  one  and  omnipresent 
God.  And  1  cannot  but  think  that  the  last  quoted  passage 
affords  very  strong,  if  not  decisive  proof  that  Spirit  of  God 
I?,  (i  synonymy  iox  God  himself.  It  is  particularly  to  be 
observed  that  the  apostle  compares  the  Spirit  of  God  to  the 
spirit  of  man,  and  reasons  from  the  one  to  the  other.  Now 
if  we  allow  that  the  apostle  is  a  consistent  and  correct  rea- 
soner,  must  we  not  infer,  that,  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  is  not 
a  distinct  person  or  agent  from  the  man  himself,  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  not  a  distinct  person,  or  agent,  from  God  ?  This 
inference,  although  without  design,  is  well  supported,  I 
think,  by  Dr.  Worcester.  Speaking  of  the  Spirit,  he 
obser\cs,  "  He  knows  the  tilings  of  God,  as  the  spirit  of  a 
man  knows  what  is  in  the  jnan,  that  is,  by  intuition,  by 
consciousness.  As  the  spirit  of  a  man  is  conscious  to  all 
that  is  in  him,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  conscious  to  all  that  is 
in  God."  The  Doctor  very  justly  observes  that  the  spirit 
of  a  man  knows  what  is  in  the  man  "by  intuition — by 
consciousness^'''*  that  is,  by  immediate  knowledge,  by 
k^o^^  ledge  which  is  not  obtained  by  deduction  of  reason, 
but  by  perception  of  what  passes  in  his  own  mind.  This 
is  the  only  way  in  which  a  man  knows  what  is  in  himself 
or  in  which  he  knows  himself  Nor  can  he  in  this  Avay 
knoAv  any  other  man  or  person.  Since  then  the  Spirit 
knows  in  ^/?w  Tf«y,  by  consciousness,  the  things  of  God, 
the  Spirit  must,  it  should  seem,  be  God  himself,  for  con- 
sciousness implies,  exclusively.,  personal  kriowledge,  or  the 
kncrwledge  of  one'' s  self  But  if  these  things  do  not  afford 
convincing  evidence  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  the 
one  God,  and  not  a  distinct  person  from  him,  the  following 
pas,sages  compared,  if  duly  considered,  can  hardly  fail  to 


79 

produce  complete  conviction.     "  For  it  is  not  ye,  tliat 
speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  v\  hich  s])caketh  in 
you."  Matt.  x.  20.     "  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the 
Holy  Spirit."  Mark  xiii.  11.      As  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
Spirit  of  God  the  Father,   and  as  God  the  rather  is  a 
"  Spirit,  and  a  Holy  Spirit,'''*  and  but   One   Spirit,  must 
not  Spirit  of  God  be  synonymous  imth   God  h'unself? 
How  can  it  be  otherwise  ?    But  if,  when  not  personified 
or  used  figuratively,  "  Holy  Spirit"  and  "  Spirit  of  God," 
signifies  THE  one  true  God,    the   Father,   must  it 
not  be  highly  improper  to  ascribe  to  the  Spirit,  divine 
honours,  as  a  distinct  person  or  being  from  the  one  God  ? 
Shall  we  worship  an  attribute,  an  influence  or  operation  of 
God,  as  if  it  were  God  himself,  or  a  distinct  person  from, 
and  co-equal  with  God  ?    This,  Sir,  I  dare  not  do  witliout 
scriptural  warrant  either  by  precept  or  example.     But  this 
warrant  I  find  not.    Nor  do  I  find  any  mention  made  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  distinct  object  of  worship  to  the  heav- 
enly inhabitants,  nor  any  thing  which  favors  the  supposition 
that  the  Spirit  is  such  an  object.     Where  all  the  inhabit- 
ants of  mount  Zion,  the  city  of  the  living  God,  are  enumer- 
ated, I  find  God,  Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  the  New   Cov- 
enant, angels  and  the  spirits  of  just  men  rnade  perfect ;  but 
I  find  no  mention  made  of  the  Holy   Spirit.     But  is  not 
this  omission  perfectly  unaccountable,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
a  person  or  being,  distinct  from  God,  and  equal  to  God  ? 
In  this  same  city  of  the  living  God,  I  find,  "  every  creature 
saying,  blessing,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  power,  be 
imto  him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  imto  the  Lamb 
forever  and  ever."    He  who  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  is 
God  the  Father,  and  the  Lamb  is  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  Father,  to  each  of  whom  appropriate  honour  or  worship 
is  given  by  all  the  holy  inhabitants  of  heaven.     But  we  find 
no  honour  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  indeed  any 
mention  made  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?    But  how  are  we  to 
account  for  this  strange  omission,  if  the  Holy   Spirit  is  a 
person  equal  to  God  ?    To  me,  Sir,   it  appears  altogether 
unaccountable,  and  especially  when  I  find  no  intimation'm. 
scripture  that  a  Triune  mode  of  worship  was  ever  known 
to   the  heavenly  inhabitants.     Among  them  we  find  no 
ascription  of  praise  or  glory  to  the  Holy   Spirit.    Nor  do 
we  find  any  such  ascription  made  by  any  devout  worship- 
pers of  God  on  earth,  until  the  christian  church  had  become 
greatly  "  corrupted  from  the  simplicity"  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ.     At  that  period,  when  moral  "  darkness  covered 
the  earth  and  gross  darkness  the  people,"  it  was  decreed^ 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  person  distinct  from,  and  equal 
to  the  Supreme  God.     And  then  it  was  that  the  Triune 
form  of  worship  was  established  bylaw,  became  popular 


80 

and  reputedly  orthodox.  There  were  not  wanting,  how- 
ever, at  that  time,  those  who  adhered  to,  and  adv^ocated 
the  Unitarian  doctrine.  Nor  were  such  characters  wholly 
extinct  during  the  long  and  dreary  reign  of  darkness  in  the 
church  of  Christ.  The  Waldenses  and  Albigcnses  nobly 
dared  to  dissent  from  the  orthodox  church,  nor  could  the 
most  infamous  and  sanguinary  persecution  inflicted  upon 
them  l3y  that  church,  reclaim  them  from  their  reputed 
heresy.  Embracing  the  Bible,  and  not  the  orthodox  creed 
as  the  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice,  they  remained  stead- 
fast in  the  faith,  not  loving  their  lives  even  unto  death. 
Nor  can  it  reasonably  be  questioned  that  from  the  period, 
now  in  view,  through  successive  generations,  Unitarians 
have  arisen  who  have  shone  as  burning  lights  both  in  the 
exemplariness  of  their  lives,  and  in  their  zealous,  able  and 
successful  defence  ot  the  gospel.  To  the  zealous,  inti'epid, 
and  persevering  exertions  of  such  men,  it  is  in  a  great 
measure  owing,  under  divine  Providence,  that  the  lamp  of 
the  gospel  has  not  beeji  completely  extinguished — that  its 
light  has  been  increased  in  the  world,  and  that  the  rights  of 
conscience  and  christian  liberty  are  now  so  well  under- 
stood, and  in  so  high  a  degree  enjoyed.  These  are  facts 
which  ought  to  be  known  by  christians  generally,  and 
particularly  by  those  who  identiiy  Umtanamsm  with 
infidelity — rank  Unitarians  with  infidels^  and  who  are  not 
sparing  in  their  exertions  to  destroy  tlie  influence  of  Uni- 
tarian ministers^  and  to  annihilate  Unitarian  churches. 
Were  these  facts  generally  known  and  duly  considered, 
Trinitarians,  it  is  presumed,  would  soon  estimate  and  treat 
their  Unitarian  brethren,  whose  lives  adorn  the  doctrine  of 
God  our  Saviour,  as  sincere  christians ;  and  Unitarians 
would  be  incited  so  to  emulate  the  great  and  noble  virtues 
of  those  who  have  sealed  their  faith  with  their  blood,  as  to 
have  a  more  just  and  indubitable  claim  to  the  respect  and 
cordial  affection  of  Trinitarian  christians. 

Here,  Sir,  my  remarks  on  the  Holy  Spirit  would  termi- 
nate, were  it  not  that  you  probably  consider  the  circum- 
stance that  this  same  Spirit  is  the  "  Spirit  of  Christ,']  as 
affording  evidence  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Spirit.  I  am  not  un- 
aware that  considerable  stress  is  laid  on  this  circumstance 
by  Trinitarians  as  favouring  their  theory.  But  that  it  really 
does  so,  I  am  for  from  being  satisfied.  May  not  the  Holy 
Spirit  be  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ  because  the  Father 
imparled  it  to  him  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  and  because 
by  the  instrumentality  of  Christ,  it  was  communicated  to 
the  apostles  and  primitive  christians?  But  as  Christ 
received  it  from  tlie  Father,  must  it  not  have  been  the 
Father's  originallv  and  independently,  and  Christ's  by 


81 

communication,  or  in  a  sccondarj^  sense  ?  But  what  are 
we  to  understand  by  the  Spirit  as  imparted  by  the  F.ither 
to  Christ,  but  the  power,  the  injiuence,  the  fulness  of  thd 
Father,  \\\  an  iiumeasurable  degn-e  ?  As  God  anointed  or 
endued  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Spirit  on 
this  account  may  \vith  propriety  be  called  his  Spirit.  But 
is  it  from  this  circumstance  to  be  inferred,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a  divine  person  in  the  Godhead  '?  The  circum- 
stance will  not,  I  should  think,  justify  such  an  inference* 
Nor  can  I  be  satisfied  that  any  circumstance  found  in  scrip- 
ture respecting  the  Holy  Spirit,  affords  evidence  either  de- 
cisive or  probable  of  its  distinct  personal  existence. 

Whether  the  above  remarks  will  afford  you  any  satisfac- 
tion, or  whether  they  will  assist  you  in  discovering  what,  or 
how  great  is  the  difference  in  sentiment  between  us,  or 
others,  in  relation  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  know  not.  For  my 
own  part,  I  confess  that  I  do  not  know  the  real  and  precise 
difference  between  Trinitarians  and  Unitarians  in  respect 
to  this  subject.  Dr.  Worcester  indeed,  and  other  Trini- 
tarian writers,  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  "  possessing  per*- 
sonal  divinity" — -as  "  knowing  the  things  of  God,  as  the 
spirit  of  a  man  knows  what  is  in  man,"  and  as  "  God." 
But  do  not  Unitarians  admit  the  correctness  of  these  repre- 
sentations ?  This,  I  presume,  is  generally,  if  not  univer- 
sally the  case.  As  to  myself  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that 
I  consider  the  Holy  Spirit  as  personally  divine,  as  God,  and 
as  knowing  the  things  of  God,  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  knows 
what  is  in  man,  or  in  himself.  But  I  cannot  be  satisfied 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  another,  or  a  distinct  God  from  the 
Father,  and  equal  to  the  Father,  or  that  the  terms  alway 
denote  a  person.  Nor  can  I  suppose  that  Dr.  Worcester 
and  other  Trinitarians  believe  this  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for 
however  incorrect  some  of  their  expressions,  they  solemnly 
profess  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  but  one  Supreme 
God.  Believing  then,  as  I  sincerely  do,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  God,  "  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,"  and 
that  there  is  but  one  God  possessed  of  these  attributes, 
what  is  the  difference  between  the  Dr.'s  belief  and  mine  ? 
That  there  is  a  verbal  diflerence  betwe  n  us,  is  very  ob- 
vious— that  there  is  otherwise  a  circumstantial  difference 
between  us,  is  probable ;  nor  will  I  deny  that  the  difference 
between  us  is  radical — essential.  But  it  is  my  hope  that 
such  a  difference  does  not  exist,  I  do  not  indeed  under- 
stand some  of  the  Dr.'s  expressions  respecting  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  seem  to  represent  him  as  a  distinct  person,  agent, 
being,  God,  from  the  one  God  the  Father,  as  equal  to  the 
Father,  and  as  the  Supreme  God  by  virtue  of  an  insepara- 
ble union  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Were  I  allowed 
to  understand  such  representations  according  to  their  jnost 
L 


82 

natural  and  obvious  meaning,  my  conclusion  would  be 
that  Dr.  Worcester  and  otiier  Trinitiirians  believe  in  more 
Gods  than  one.  But  as  he  disclaims  for  himself  and 
others  such  a  belief,  I  must  conclude  that  his  representa- 
tions mean  something  widely  dilferent  from  what thty  seem 
to  mean.  But  fruitless  are  my  cndea\'ours  t<j  ascertain 
what  this  something  is.  I  do  think  that  the  Doctor  has 
no  where  told  us  ;  and  strongly  do  I  suspect  that  his  neglect 
to  do  this,  n\ust  have  been  owing  to  his  inability  to  do  it, 
or  rather  to  the  inexplicable  nature  of  the  doctrine  which  he 
advocates.  Satisfied  as  I  am  that  Dr.  W.  is  abundantly 
competent  to  write  in  a  luminous  manner  on  any  subject 
which  he  understands,  and  to  explain,  in  an  intelligible 
manner,  the  terms  and  expressions  which  he  uses  in  w  riting 
on  any  such  subject,  I  cannot  account  for  it  that  he  should 
use  terms  and  expressions  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  convey  no  distinct  and  inteliigibie  meaning,  but  on 
the  stipposition  that  he  hns  no  clej.r  ideas  of  the  Spirit,  as  a 
person  distinct  from,  and  eqUc;l  to  God.  Bat  if  a  man  of 
his  talents  and  acuteness  of  discernment  does  not  convey 
any  distinct  and  intelligible  ideas  on  this  subject,  because 
on  his  principles  it  is  not  in  his  po'ver  to  do  it,  is  there  not 
great  reason  to  believe  that  his  theory  is  involved  in  much 
confusion,  and  that  it  is  not  susceptible  of  explanation,  or 
of  being  rationally  believed  ?  Instead  of  illustrating,  it 
seems  to  me  that  he  has  greatly  darkened  the  subject,  by 
"  words  without  knowledge."  And  I  must  be  permitted 
to  add,  that  his  manner  of  discussing  the  subject,  instead 
of  removing  my  doubts  respecting  the  distinct  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  has  contributed  not  a  little  to  strengthen  them. 
To  what  cause  this  effect  will  be  ascribed  1  know  not,  nor 
am  I  solicitous  to  know.  But  the  question,  what  is  truth, 
respecting  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  other  subjects  on  which 
I  have  remarked,  excites  my  deepest  solicitude.  My 
heart's  desire,  and  prayer  to  God  is,  that  this  truth,  what- 
ever it  is,  may  soon  be  clearly  seen,  and  cordially  embraced, 
and  practically  regarded  by  christians  of  all  denominations, 
and  by  tlie  whole  himian  family.  Should  Dr.  Worcester, 
or  myself,  or  each  of  us,  be  instrumeiital,  in  any  degree,  by 
what  we  have  written,  of  contributipg  to  this  great  and 
much  desired  event,  our  labour  w  ill  not  have  been  in  vain. 
Let  the  Lord  be  praised. 

Conclusion. 

I  have  now,  my  dear  Sir,  agreeably  to  your  request, 
communic.'.ted  to  you  "  some  of  my  thouglits"  respecting 
the  late  correspondence  of  the  l\c\.  Dr.  Worcester  w  ith 


83 

the  Rev.  Mr.  Channing-  *'  on  the  subject  of  Unitarianism." 
In  doing-  tliis  I  have  designedly  passed  over  unnoiiced,  no 
text  of  scriptnreon  u  hich  the  Dr.  seemed  to  rely  as  evidence 
in  supp(3rt  of  tlie  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the 
Godiicad,  or  of  the  essential  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  of 
the_  personal  divinitj'  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor  have  I 
designedly  made  any  misrepresentation  of  his  statements 
or  views  ;  nor  declined  to  notice  any  of  his  arguments  in 
support  of  the  Trinitarian  theory,  wliich  I  considered  as 
having  a  claim  to  serious  consideration.  I  dare  not,  how- 
ever, peremj^torily  say  that  I  have  done  him  strict  justice. 
It  is  indeed  not  unlikeh-  that  I  have  ^\  ith  respect  to  some 
things  inisapprehended  his  meaning  ;  and  that  with  respect 
to  others  1  liaxe  said  things  ^^'hich  may  not  have  a  just 
bearing.  Should  this  hiive  been  the  case,  I  have  to  express 
my  regret,  wiili  th.is  apoU^gy,  that  in  writing  my  review  of 
Dr.  W.'s  Letters,  I  ha\e  been  able  to  avail  myself  of  only 
detaclied  portions  of  time — a  circumstance  which  I  have 
foimd  not  a  liuie  unfa\'ourable  to  my  (jbject  of  pursuit. 
You  will  allow  to  this  apology,  I  will  presume,  its  just  due. 

The  principal  object  of  n)y  review,  you  must  perceive 
to  have  been  to  ascertain  \\  liether  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  1*  aiher  of  all,  be  alone  the  Supreme  God. 
Whether  it  has  been  made  to  appear  that  this  is  really  the 
fact,  you  will  decide  for  yourself.  For  my  own  part,  I 
have  to  say,  that  if  the  evidence  produced  to  substantiate 
the  fact  is  not  completely  demonstrative,  it  appears  too 
forcible  to  he  easily  resisted. 

If  then  there  is  but  one  Supreme  God,  t/ie  Father^  is  it 
not  a  truth  too  ob\ious  to  admit  of  reasonable  controversy, 
that  all  other  beings  denominated  Gods,  whether  in  heaven 
or  in  earth,  are  subordinate  to,  and  dependent  on  God  the 
Father  for  their  dignity  and  perfections  ? 

If  the  Father  alone  is  the  one  Supreme  God,  as  the  scrip- 
ture seems  unequivocally  to  teach  us,  does  it  not  necessarily 
follow  that  the  Supreme  (irod  is  one  Person  ?  Have  we 
not  indeed  the  express  testnuony  of  scripture  that  this  is 
the  case,  and  that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  express  image  of  his 
Person  '?"  But  have  we  any  such  assurance  that  the  one 
God  is  more  than  one  Person  ?  "W'hat  is  the  foundation 
then,  on  which  the  Trinitarian  theory  is  built  ? 

If  unto  us  there  is  but  one  God,  even  the  Father,  by 
what  authority  is  it  asserted  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  is  God  in  the  highest  sense,  or  that  he  is  equal  to  his 
Supreme  Father?  Did  not  Jesus  Christ  disclaim  this 
character  in  all  that  he  said  of  hmiself,  and  of  his  Father  ; 
and  particularly  in  that  decisive  and  unequivocal  declara- 
tion, "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I  ?"  Are  you  not  then 
afraid,  Sir,that  in  saying  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God,in  the  su- 


preme  sense,  or  that  he  is  as  great  as  his  Father,  you  ^vill 
be  found  to  contradict  his  testimony,  gi-eatly  to  dishonour 
his  character,  and  to  fight  against  the  Supremacy  of  his 
God  and  our  God  ? 

If  God  the  Father  is  alone  the  Supreme  God,  must  not 

he  alone  be  the  object  of  supreme  worship  ?  Does  not  this 

inference  seem  both  just  and  necessar\'  ?    And  is  it  not 

supported  by  an  authority  from  m  hich  there  should  be  no 

appeal  F   "  Thou   shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and 

him  o?i/i/  shalt  thou  serve."- — "  Worship  him,  l,11  ye  gods." 

Agreei.bly  with  these  injunctions,  did  not  Jesus  Christ, 

who  sustained  the  title  of  God,  alwiiys  worship  his  Father 

as  a  Being  of  unrivalled  glory,  an.d  "  far  exalted  above  all 

gods?''    Are  you  under  no  apprehension,  then,  that  in 

worshipping  three  persons,  intelligent  agents,  or  beings,  each 

possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,  you  become  chargeable 

with  practical  disregcird  of  "  the  first  of  all  th.e  connnand- 

inents,"  and  of  a  departure  from  the  pr^xtiee  of  him  VAho 

hi'.th  *'  set  us  an  exiimple  that  \\e  should  follow  his  steps  ?" 

The  hour,  my  dear  Sir,  "  is  comii.g,  i\r,d  now  is,  when  the 

tr7ie  zvorsh?ppe?'s  shall  worship  the  Father  m  spirit  and  in 

truth."     As  the  scriptures  teach  us  that  "  there  is  but  one 

God,  the  Father,"  who  is  "  above  all" — even  "  above  all 

Gods,"  is  it  not  much  to  be  lamented  that  many  christian 

churches  should  reciuire  of  those,  who  are  desirous  of 

rnjoying  with  them  christian  communion,  at  the  Lord's 

table,  ar/<?;7Zfl:/ofthe  Supremacy  of  the  Father,  or  that  he 

ialone  is  the  Supreme  God  ?     Is  the  acknowledgment  that 

Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy   Spirit  are  persons,   agents,  or 

beings  distinct  from  the  Father,  and  that  each  of  them  is 

God,  possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,  consistent  with  the 

Supremacy  of  the   one  God,  the  Father  ?    And  yet  it  is 

Insisted  on  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy— as  a  touchstone  of  an 

anti-idolatrous  heart,  and  as  a  passport  to  the  enjoyment  of 

a  precious  gospel  institution,  to  which  all  were  originally 

admitted,  who  professed  to  believe  in  Jesus   Christ  as  the 

Son  of  the  Suj^reme  Father  !     How  sad — ho\^-  melancholy 

JS  the  consideration  that  a  profession  of  this  same  fiiith,  and 

the  most  exemplary  life,  in  a  moral  and  religious  vie\v, 

■should  be  considered  by  so  many  christian  ministers  and 

churches  as  utterly  insufficient  to  entitle  a  person  to  their 

fellowship  !     I  cannot  but  strongly   apprehend,   Sir,  that 

this  is  utterly  a  fluilt  among  them. 

Do  the  scriptures  teach  us  that  the  God  and  Father  of 
pur  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  alone  the  Supreme  God  ?  Is  it 
not  then  much  to  be  regretted  that  general  associations,  and 
many  minor  associations  of  christian  ministers,  should 
create  and  emploj-  a  combined  influence  to  discourage  and 
preyent  the  reception  and  progress  of  this  great  and  import 


85 

aiit  truth  ?  Will  not  many  individual  christians,  and 
christian  churches,  be  likely,  through  this  powerful  influ- 
ence, to  admit,  adhere  to,  and  intemperately  defend  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  a  criTcrion  of  cliristian  piety,  and 
an  indispensable  term  of  christian  communion,  wiihout 
due  examination,  and  without  suspecting  that  the  doctrine 
is  incompatible  with  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father,  or  the 
Divine  Unity  ?  Will  n.ot  pious  young  men,  preparing  for 
the  sacred  ministry,  or  entered  upon  its  functions,  be 
improperly  biassed  and  directed  by  this  same  influence  in 
their  religious  opinions  and  theological  pursuits?  And 
will  not  public  opinion  also  be  formed,  established  and 
directed  by  its  instrumentality,  \^'ithout  the  salutary  aid  of 
free  inquiry,  diligent  research,  and  impartiality  of  judg- 
ment ?  These  and  other  evils  have  already  resulted,  I 
apprehend,  from  this  formidable  influence.  Nor,  so  long  as 
it  shall  exist  unim.paired,  is  it  to  be  expected,  that  such  evil 
results  will  be  less  either  in  num.ber,  in  magnitude,  or  in 
extent.  But  is  this  influence  always  to  exist  with  unabated 
strength  ?     Future  time  must  decide. 

If  the  Father  alone  is  the  Supreme  God,  it  becomes  a 
very  serious  and  interesting  question  whether  christians, 
who  believe  this  doctrine,  can  consistently  with  a  good 
conscience  and  the  christian  character  disguise  their  belief, 
or,  in  any  way,  give  countenance  and  support  to  a  doctrine, 
which  appears  to  them  repugnant  to  it  ?  That  christians, 
in  whose  character  there  should  be  no  guile,  should  in  any 
instances  be  suspected  of  duplicity  in  their  religious  laith 
and  practice,  is  to  be  regretted ; — that  they  should  occasion 
just  suspicion  of  this,  is  a  subject  for  much  deeper  regret ; 
and  that  they  should  persist  in  giving  such  occasion,  seems 
to  imply  that  tear  of  man  which  brings  an  entangling  and 
pernicious  snare  to  the  soul.  Such  conduct  admits  neither 
of  justification  nor  satisfactory  apology.  But  are  there  any 
members  of  Trinitarian  churches  ^^'ho  are  justly  chargeable 
with  this  highly  improper  and  exceptionable  conduct  ? 
WHiat,  my  dear  Sir,  shall  \ve  say  of  those,  who,  firmly 
believing  that  the  Father  alone  is  the  Supreme  God,  appar- 
ently assent  to,  and  virtually  patronize  a  creed  which  avows 
the  existence,  and  demands  a  belief  in  the  existence  of 
two  more  co-equal  persons  or  agents  ?  Are  not  such 
members  of  churches  guilty  of  this  duplicity,  by  rising 
with  the  other  members,  when  the  Trinitarian  creed  is 
publickly  read  ?     Do  they  not  rise   in  token  of  assent  to  jjyj 

the  articles  of  that  creed,  some  of  which,  to  say  the  least, 
are  repugnant  to  the  dictates  of  their  understandings,  and 
to  the  feelings  of  their  hearts  ?  Should  these  our  brethren 
plead,  in  vindication  of  their  conduct,  that,  should  they 
decline  to  give  an  implied  assent  to  the  creed,  and  especially 


86 

should  they  protest  against  it,  the  peace  of  the  church  M'oiild 
be  interriip'cd,  its  prusperity  endangered,  and  tluit  tliey 
would  subject  themsehes  to  the  charge  of  heresy,  and  to 
excision  from  christian  ftllo^\•ship  with  their  brethren — the 
plea  will  excite  in  our  breast  emotions  of  symjiathy  and 
commiseration  ;  but  it  w  ill  be  very  f  t  from  convincihg  us 
that  they  arc  ir.fluenced,  as  they  ought  to  be,  by  those 
motives  and  principles  w  hich  are  the  glory  of  the  cliiistian 
profession  and  character. 

Must  not  the  christian,  Mho  has  a  just,  and  clear,  and 
impressive  view  and  sense  of  the  true  sj^irit  and  genius  of 
our  pure  and  holy  religion,  be  disposed  manfully  to  assert 
that  liberty  by  which  Christ  has  made  him  Iree  ?  Pos- 
sessed of  a  nolDle  ingenuousness  of  heart,  will  he  not 
exphcitly^  renounce  "  the  hidden  thii/gs  of  dishonesty  ? 
Not  walking  jn  croftiness,  nor  handling  the  word  of  G(xl 
deceitfully  ;^  but  by  manifestation  of  the  truth,"  will  he 
not  make  it  his  steady  object,  by  shunning  the  very 
appearance  of  evil,  to  "  keep  a  conscience  void  of  offence," 
and  to  commend  himself,  by  ir.flexlble  integrity  of  princi- 
ple and  conduct,  to  the  approbatioii  of  all  good  men,  "  in 
the  sight  of  God?"  While  he  will  "  snidy  the  things 
which  iTiake  for  peace,"  in  every  practicable  way  consist- 
ently with  the  uprightness  of  his  heart,  and  the  purity  of 
his  religious  principles  ;  yet  to  please  man,  or  to  secure 
popular  applause,  he  will  ncA'cr  consent  to  make  shipu  reck 
of  his  conscience,  or  to  treat  with  cold  neglect,  much  less 
apparently  to  renounce  a  doctrine  of  revelation  ^hich  he 
believes  to  be  of  all  others  the  most  important,  t/ie  unity  of 
God.  Must  he  not  feel  an  irresistible  obligation  to  w  iih- 
hold  assent,  CAcn  in  remote  appearance,  from  an  article  of 
faith  A\  hich  requires  him  professedly  to  deny  his  o\\  n  faith 
in  a  doctrine  which  he  esteems  as  pre-eminently  import- 
ant ?  Will  he  not — must  he  not,  fearless  of  consequences, 
nobly  dare  to  act  accordin.g  to  his  conviction  ? 

These  suggestions  ha\'e  a  solemn  and  imperious  claim 
to  the  aw  akened  and  serious  consideration  of  all  whom 
they  immediLitely  concern,  jVnd  most  devoutly  is  it  to  be 
hoped  that  they  will  not  fail  to  produce  effects  coiTCspond- 
ent  to  their  importance. 

If  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  alone  the  Su- 
preme God,  is  there  not  much  reason  to  apprehend  that  no 
exertions  w  hich  eidxr  are,  or  may  be  made  to  convert  the 
Jevv  s  and  Mahometans,  or  even  the  Pagans  to  the  christian 
faith  will  be  cro\\ned  with  much  success,  so  long  as  tlie 
doctrine  ofthe  Trinity  shall  be  exhibited  to  tliem,  by  chris- 
tian instructors,  as  essential  to  the  christian  system  ?  Both 
Jews  and  Mahometans,  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  are  finn 
believers  in  the  doctrine  ofthe  Divine  Unity,  or  that  God 


87 

is  but  one  person  ?  Is  it  then  to  be  expected,  and  espec- 
ially if  this  doctrine  is  true,  that  many  of  them  will  ever  be 
persuaded  to  embrace  a  doctrine  wliich  avows  the  existence 
oi'  t^vo  other  persons,  agents,  beings,  or  Gods,  equal  to 
God  the  Father  ?  To  this  doctrine  they  object  as  exhib- 
iting the  strongest  features  of  polytheism ;  as  connected 
with  idolatry,  and  as  highly  impious.  Is  it  to  be  expected 
then,  that  they  will  cease  to  urge  this  objection  so  long  as 
the  occasion  of  it  shall  co:itinue  ?  But  is  the  doctrine 
friendly  to  the  conversion  of  the  Heathens?  Will  tiiey 
not  be  likely  to  object  to  it  as  tavom'iiig  idolatrj^,  and  as 
truly  so  as  their  beliei'  in  a  plurulity  of  Gods  *?  Can  it  then 
reasonably  be  expected  that  they  will  abandon  a  system  of 
idolatry,  to  which  ihey  h  ive  so  long  been  attached,  and 
accustomed  to  hold  in  the  highest  reverence,  for  another 
system  which  seems  to  favour  an  idolatrous  worship  /* 

As  these  suggestions  demand  the  serious  attention  of 
missionary  societies,  and  christian  missionaries,  it  is  to  be 
hoped  tliat  they  will  not  be  treated  with  indifference  and 
neglect.  Bnt  in  whatever  light  they  may  be  viewed,  or 
whatever  may  be  their  effect,  it  is  not  to  be.  doubted  that 
the  christian  religion,  notwithstanding  all  the  obstacles  now 
in  the  way,  will  ere  long  be  universally  embraced  in  its 
native  purity.  The  translation  of  the  Bible,  -without  note 
or  comment,  into  every  language  under  heaven,  and  its  dis- 
persion among  all  the  tribes,  of  men,  will,  it  is  presumed, 
beyond  all  other  means  contribute  to  the  accomplishment 
of  this  great  and  glorious  event.  To  the  translation  of  the 
Bible,  then,  and  to  its  circulation  in  all  tlie  destitute  parts 
of  the  world,  christians  of  all  denominations  should  turn 
their  eager  attention,  and  combine,  for  the  accomplishment 
of  this  most  desirable  object,  their  zealous  and  persevering 
efforts. 

Thus  may  the  Holy  Scriptures  soon  have  free  course, 
run  and  be  glorified.  May  their  pure  and  divine  doctrines 
be  well  understood  and  cordially  embraced  by  every 
nation,  kingdom  and  tongue.  Ma\'  all  the  corruptions  of 
Christianity  be  soon  detected,  exposed  and  abandoned,  its 
peaceable  and  benign  spirit  be  more  copiously  imbibed, 
and  its  beneficent  fruits  more  abundantly  produced  ! 

These  auspicious  events  we  joyfully  anticipate  as  sure 
and  steadfast.  And  the  signs  of  the  times  encourage  the 
hope  that  they  cannot  be  far  distant.  Among  these,  the 
late  controversy  "  on  the  subject  of  Unitarianism"  is  not 
to  be  overlooked.  With  Dr.  ^Vorcester,  I  believe  that 
"  the  points  in  discussion  ai'c  among  the  most  important, 
that  could  be  offered  to  the  attention  of  the  christian  com- 
munity." And  "  that  though  some  ill  effects  may  ensue, 
as,  in  a  world  like  tliis,  is  always  to  be  expected,  when 


88 

any  thing  is  attempted  for  the  cause  of  truth  ;  yet  the  per- 
suasion is  continually  extending  and  gaiiiing  sti'ength,  that 
the  good  effects  will  greatly  preponderate."  That  this  may 
soon,  and  more  visibly  be  the  h  ippy  case — thctt  the  truth 
respecting  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  may  be 
clearly  set-n  and  cordially  embraced — that  the  inspired 
scriptures  may  be  unix-ersally  received  as  the  standard  of 
faith  and  practice,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  unscriptural  and 
anti-scriptural  words  and  phrases  from  every  religious 
creed  in  Christendom — that  the  "  faith  of  christians  should 
not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God 
— that  "  all  bitterness,  and  \\  rath,  and  anger,  and  clamour, 
and  evil  speaking,"  on  all  sides,  may  utterly  cease — that 
all  may  speak  the  same  thing,  and  be  perfectly  joined 
together  in  the  same  judgment — that  a  spirit  of  unhallowed 
war  and  contention,  of  whatever  kind,  may  give  place  to  a 
spirit  of  peace  and  fraternal  affection,  and  that  the  world 
maj^  be  filled  widi  the  divine  glory,  is  the  ardent  prayer 
and  confident  expectation  of,  dear  Sir,  your  sincere  friend, 
and  servant,  as  well  in  the  consolations,  as  afflictions,  of  the 
gospel  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 


u 


\ 


t  ■••.) 


•*.-*>  ;  >:,Ji«>> 


\y\\s 


«:; 


f-' 


h,4)y^^i 


